Andleeb Abbas
Maulana Rumi’s saying is “Demise of 1000 intelligent men will not be as disastrous as giving authority to one idiot”. Sounds harsh but is true. Behind the rise and fall of families, companies or institutions are individuals who make or break the future and fate of many generations. History and the present literature is replete with examples of how despite the best structure, systems and infrastructure institutions wither away while nearly all heroic tales show how the presence of the right person for the right job transformed fortunes. Pakistan is an example of the exercise or lack of exercise of this universal principle called merit. Public sector enterprises have been dismissed as being junk to be disposed of to private buyers. However, these very enterprises were responsible for being a beacon of performance for many private enterprises. The difference was the men in incharge and especially the men in decision-making roles.
Developed world has taught practical lessons of development. They create systems and rules that subordinate the individual to the institution. However, the creation of rules and the respect and adherence of these rules is matter of people at the head to exemplify and carry out regardless of rank or position. Over a period of time such institutions gain strength and become independent of individuals. When the dependence on individual decreases, the institutions develop, which in turn helps the country to develop. A testing example of this is the Trump vs institutions’ war going on in America where Trump’s attempts to derail US traditions and values are facing serious institutional resistance.
Civil service has become very uncivil. The word bureaucrat brings into mind a perception about a person who is there for getting the most out of his rank and position for himself, and, at best will be either indifferent to his job or will make the proverbial red tapism become a nightmare for any citizen who will spend his lifetime trying to get a legitimate issue solved from most government departments. This perception is not unmerited as despite being on merit is selection and after qualifying a fiercely competitive exam, majority of the time of most public servants is spent on ensuring postings, transfers and promotions. This is due to a culture of political loyalties that has become a norm in the last few decades. The loyalty and service to the man in charge is the main criteria for promotions and postings of choice. Those who are not loyal face the risk of being reduced to OSDs (Officer on Special Duty).
Merit means having a standard criteria that weighs in the competence and character of a person based on set performance indicators. However, to make a mockery of merit and to accommodate favourites the criteria is changed, rules are bent and definitions are redefined. Take the current example of reassigning weights to criteria to suit a few people. The Establishment Division recently revised the criteria for promotions of grade 20 and 21 officers in a recommendation to the prime minister by the Central Selection Board (CSB). The government has increased weight of the Training Evaluation Reports (TERs) from 15% to 35% but the weight of the Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) has been reduced from 70% to 50%. The Central Selection Board’s score has been kept unchanged at 15%. The reason being given is that PER reports are inflated and higher scores than actual are given. The question is if PER reports can be inflated, TER, i.e., Training Evaluation Reports being more subjective and qualitative, can be filled in randomly with no check and balance system.
Earlier in March 2017, another controversy of grading shook the civil service world when a strange office memo was issued from PM’s Office to stop 94 promotions and introduce a new grading system. As per the order, five marks out of 100 for the promotion of Grade 21 officers were allocated as Prime Minister’s discretionary marks. These five marks, for integrity, are part of PM’s discretionary powers. This means that if a person scores 95 marks out of 100 for his annual service and the PM “thinks” that the officer is not fit for promotion due to ‘integrity’ issues then he will not be promoted. This matter was taken to the Islamabad High Court by officers whose career was affected and the federal government after a long litigation battle lost the case.
The problem with all these criteria is that they cannot include the biggest factor of promotions, i.e., loyalty to the top guys. Since that cannot be documented, but remains the factor that carries the highest weightage, it results in frequent changes in criteria to accommodate loyalists regardless of performance. Consequently, to accommodate a few you not only damage the careers of many who may be genuinely working but create a disincentive for those who are honest to the job. This creates a chain of inefficiencies that result in huge costs to the taxpayers in the form of wastage, losses, corruption, and poor service delivery.
The problem with breaking the chain of merit and appointing an incompetent person on top means a progressive level of incompetence at all levels. He or she will choose to sponsor and keep people below their own competence and thus at every successive level they will breed and ensure poor performance. An example of this was the case quoted above of 5% marks for integrity at the PM’s discretion. The officer whose promotion was affected and who filed a case against the federal government said that the author of this memo and policy was the Principal Secretary to PM Fuad Hassan Fuad who himself had a recorded case of integrity against him. He claimed that while Fuad Hassan Fuad was Commercial Councilor in Germany during 2005 he paid his personal utility bills through public funds. Similarly, ex-Principal Secretary to Chief Minister Punjab, Dr Tauqeer Shah who was removed on Model Town killings, instead of being punished was rewarded by being appointed at WTO Geneva despite being a grade 20 officer.
This is the sorry state of the state enterprises and the public servants. The quality of any organisation, institution or nation depends on the quality of people in it. If demerit becomes the merit of moving up in careers, the incompetent will prevail. To cover incompetence, dishonesty becomes the norm. The bad news maybe that many institutions have become insolvent in the hands of the incompetent, but the good news is that merit and accountability have become a major topic of debate and analysis and as history shows it just takes a few changed mindsets and a few competent men incharge to turnaround failing organisations and institutions.
(The writer is a columnist, consultant, coach, and an analyst and can be reached at andleeb.abbas1@gmail,com. She tweets at @AndleebAbbas)
