Why its too early to get excited about an ‘empowered’ bureaucracy

TBS Illustration

The evolving relationship between the political actors and the bureaucrats working at both the national and local level has now gained national attention especially after the unfortunate event that took place at Barisal. 

Some members of the ruling party are now openly criticising the bureaucracy, arguing that the bureaucrats have taken over and are 'running' the country instead of the elected executive. On the other hand, the bureaucrats are responding by pointing out that they are just simply following the rules, while the local level leaders are making their lives difficult by trying to exercise undue political pressure. 

To understand the nature and severity of this changing relationship, let us take a journey through the memory lane. Let us go back to 2010.

In 2010, the Deputy Commissioner (DC) of Pabna - considered a highly competent and honest official - decided to ignore several requests of the local MP to recruit party activists in the local government. 

On 17 September 2010, while a recruitment examination was going on, local leaders and activists of the ruling party attacked the DC office, vandalised several vehicles and physically assaulted the examinees and government officials, and forced the administration to stop the examination. 

As the news spread, the local MP sided with the party activists and blamed the DC for "not listening to his demands". The government's hesitation to take any action frustrated the officials and on 23 September, they held a "view-exchange" meeting with the members of the civil society. 

In that meeting, they sought justice for the incident. This became a front-page story the next day, which showed several officials weeping while describing the incident in Pabna. Later, when a ministerial committee visited the district, they blamed the officials for holding the meeting and eventually the DC was made OSD (officer on special duty). The officials, though unhappy with the outcome, decided to remain silent.

Fast forward to 18 August 2021. 

In Barisal, a group of activists and leaders of the student wing of the ruling party attacked the Upazila Nirbahi Officer's (UNO) residence. Names were called, the UNO's security came under threat and shots were fired. The mayor of the city corporation soon came to the spot and several clashes broke out between the police and the men who came to vandalise the UNO residence. 

Unlike the Pabna incident, the officials of the administration services decided to speak up and soon a strong statement was released by BASA (Bangladesh Administrative Services Association). Cases were filed and in two separate cases, the mayor was identified as the key actor behind the incident. 

If these two incidents are compared, the change in relationship between politics and administration becomes evident. In the first case, the bureaucracy was in a vulnerable position and it eventually failed to protect itself from political interference. The second case, on the other hand, indicates that the appointed officials are now powerful enough to stand up against political actors. 

This raises two important questions- how did this happen? And, what does this mean for the country?

While talking about the dominant role of the bureaucracy, many observers focus on the 2018 election and argue that since the bureaucracy played a role in helping the ruling party to stay in power, this is the 'reward' they are receiving.

This partnership between the government and the bureaucracy, however, started much earlier. In fact, three factors played important roles in defining this partnership. 

First of all, the 2014 election not only marked the collapse of electoral democracy in the country, it also encouraged the government to redesign the 'winning coalition' that helped it to stay in power. Since the government did not need to rely on elections to stay in power, in designing and implementing policies, it started to depend on technocrats while sacrificing the political leaders working at the rural level. 

Local-level political leaders were sidelined, and the bureaucracy and the business leaders found their places in the government's inner circle. This is the starting point of the partnership that is now shaping the country's political future.

Secondly, local level elected leaders and the chairs and other members of the Union Parishad, Upazila Parishad, and Zila Parishad found out that they had the chair and title, but not enough power to exercise. The power dynamics had changed. 

Moreover, the MPs and the elected local government officials started fighting for the scarce resources, mostly to claim credit or to satisfy their clientele groups and the resulting conflict allowed the government officials to become more powerful.

Thirdly, over the years, the democratic norms and institutions have become too weak to ensure the accountability of the executive. Bureaucracy has been the prime beneficiary of this as the absence of effective horizontal accountability mechanisms and political interference in the activities of the institutions of accountability have created an ever-expanding zone of discretion for the appointed officials.

These three factors combined have empowered the bureaucracy, allowed it to exercise authority over the political actors and created a pathway for it to regain its power and position. 

This brings us back to the second question- what does this mean for the country? 

A simple and somewhat naïve comparison between Pabna and Barisal would probably indicate nothing wrong. After all, what happened in 2010 in Pabna was wrong and competent, honest officials had to face the music for ignoring unlawful demands. From that perspective, 2021 Barisal is a perfect response as the bureaucracy has finally mustered enough power to stand up to undue political interference. 

However, this optimistic assumption does not make sense for three specific reasons. First of all, if unelected officials remain unaccountable in exercising power, it is unlikely that in the long run, the current positive responses will dominate or even continue. Without a proper accountability framework, unlawful use of discretion may become a dominant narrative. 

Secondly, it is important to note that the bureaucracy is supposed to play a political role, but this 'political role' has a certain meaning. It implies that they will participate in policy making by using their expertise, will help the party in power in defining its political goals, will suggest necessary alternatives and will speak truth to power, if necessary. There is, however, a difference between being political and being partisan. 

The bureaucracy can defend a government's policy, but it cannot defend a government or define its legitimacy. As part of 'speaking truth to power', the bureaucracy may defend a policy once designed but it cannot defend or openly support the ruling party's ideological standpoint. It can participate in meetings or conferences where policy decisions are being discussed, but it cannot be part of a political rally or meeting and it cannot make partisan political statements. 

Unfortunately, it looks like the bureaucrats of the country, even the best and the brightest ones, are crossing this very important line and trying to ideologically align themselves with the party in power. 

Finally, it seems like the bureaucracy is being quite selective in 'speaking truth to power' and in several cases, it is standing up to undue influence exercised by the political elite only when such actions tend to threaten their power and authority. 

In fact, the bureaucracy is concentrating more on preserving its status as a powerful ally of the government instead of upholding professional values and integrity that would allow it to play the role of a technically sound 'neutral arbiter'. 

Therefore, the shift in the politics-administration relationship is empowering the bureaucracy but this empowerment is forcing a new, energetic, and innovative bureaucracy to lose its spirit.

An ideal politics-administration relationship is often termed as 'complementarity' where the bureaucracy will help the political actors to define their political goals and will speak up if the appointed officials think that a policy will not benefit the citizens. 

The bureaucracy's discretionary power cannot and should not be eliminated and instead it should be nurtured within a boundary where a proper accountability mechanism will encourage the bureaucrats to innovate and create public value while protecting them from undue political interference. 

Unfortunately, in the context of Bangladesh, we have never seen this 'complementarity'. The politics-administration relationship in Bangladesh has gone through two extremes- either the bureaucrats have dominated over the political actors or the political actors have used undemocratic, coercive means to ensure loyalty to the party in power. 

There is nothing wrong in standing up to the political actors when they are pushing for illegal or extra-legal means. But in doing so, the broader goal should not be to protect its status or authority and instead, the focus should be on creating, nurturing, and protecting professional values. 

In the absence of all other available accountability mechanisms, the bureaucracy should try its best to define and determine both formal and informal norms and code of conduct and ensure that all the members of this very important organ remain committed to these professional norms and values. 

Asif M Shahan

Asif M Shahan is an Associate Professor of Dhaka University