PAKISTAN’S governance crisis is often explained in remarkably simple terms: the bureaucracy is inefficient, corrupt, resistant to reform and responsible for administrative failure. There is certainly substance to some of these criticisms. No institution should be beyond accountability and civil servants who abuse authority, take bribes or deliberately obstruct public service must face consequences. But blaming the bureaucracy alone is neither fair nor sufficient. Before judging civil servants, we must examine the institutional environment in which they are expected to function.

For decades, political leadership has exercised considerable influence over appointments, transfers, postings and promotions. Political considerations have frequently entered areas that should primarily be governed by merit, competence and institutional requirements. The result has been a civil service increasingly exposed to political pressure and career uncertainty. The irony is that the same political leadership that interferes in administration often later complains about bureaucratic inefficiency. This raises a fundamental question: Can an institution remain professional when its professional hierarchy is repeatedly subjected to external influence?

Consider the case of senior civil servants. An officer does not simply become a Grade-22 officer overnight. Promotion to the highest regular grade follows a long career and scrutiny of service record, performance, ACRs/PERs, disciplinary history and other prescribed criteria. The state therefore examines an officer’s professional record before declaring that officer suitable for Grade-22. Yet there are instances where Grade-22 officers, after receiving........

© Pakistan Observer