Rules Overlooked, Lobbying Culture Still Dominates the Administration

 Panchayet Habib

A question has come up again. In top posts of the administration, do personal contacts, recommendations from powerful circles and lobbying count more than skill, experience and honesty? This applies to appointments, promotions and postings. After the fascist Awami League government, which stayed in power for a long time, left on August 5 in 2024, an interim government was formed. During that time, a student organisation did a huge lobbying trade over reshuffles in top posts, contract hiring and promotions of officers.

Decisions in that period raised doubts about whether one common standard was used to judge administrative merit. After the elected government took office through the 13th parliamentary election, it announced that officers who had been denied promotion for political reasons despite being talented might now get due value. But even after forming the political government, this is ignored at every step. Instead, those close to the government, or those who gained benefits under the past fascist government, get more priority.

Only those who can flatter powerful people in the government and get recommendations are being promoted and posted. Officers who were deprived and those who support the BNP see a clear contradiction inside the administration. They say several officers promoted to secretary under the past fascist Awami League government are working in key ministries and divisions even under the present BNP led government. On the other hand, some officers known as deprived under the past government later served as secretaries and showed skill.

Some officers are known as honest, experienced and skilled, yet their contracts were not renewed. Still, in all policy making circles of the present government, they are known as honest officers. Others are getting contracts again. Concerned circles allege that lack of lobbying, rather than professional merit, has become the bigger factor here.

In this situation, the question is not only who became secretary, who got promoted or whose contract was extended. During the interim government, BNP supporting officers had filed complaints to remove fascist era officers. Under the present government, officers once called fascist are becoming BNP supporters. And BNP supporting officers who were deprived for 17 years are now accused of being corrupt.

The main question of these deprived BNP supporters is this. Is the government using the same standard for everyone when appointing people to key administrative posts? Or does the standard of judgment change whenever the political scene changes? If two officers have similar professional records but get different decisions, where is the explanation for the difference?

Where is the accountability for allegations of lobbying in appointments? Rules for appointing and promoting secretaries call for seniority, work experience, performance, honesty, leadership ability and following the relevant rules. But for a long time people have discussed how much the recommendations of political leaders, ministers and powerful people affect decisions beyond these factors. People talk about the habit of sending semi official letters, called DO letters, to the Public Administration Ministry through ministers and political leaders.

Allegations of lobbying have also come up in contract hiring of retired officers. If such practices affect hiring decisions, it is natural to ask how effective the formal process of checking merit remains. A recommendation and giving a post to an unqualified person on that basis are not the same thing. A recommendation for an officer does not cancel his or her merit. But if a recommendation gives an extra edge over other officers in the race, or becomes a way to skip the set standard, the fairness of the hiring process may suffer.

The most important point here is how checkable a decision is. When an officer gets an important post, people need a way to know how his or her professional record, fit for the post and reasons for selection were judged. It may not be possible to make every detail of every administrative decision public. But the rules for making decisions and the structure of accountability must be clear.

Mr. Anwar Faruque, a public administration expert and former secretary, spoke to Inqilab. He said changing individuals alone is not enough to fix the weakness of the administration. The way decisions are made must also improve. He said merit and legal qualifications must get priority over political considerations.

Is closeness to the present government a certificate of merit? After a change of government, the biggest problem in judging officers is the risk of treating political identity as a replacement for professional merit. It is not acceptable to decide that an officer is unfit just because he or she became secretary under the past government. In the same way, being known as trusted by the present government does not justify placing someone in an important post.

Many officers promoted to secretary under the fascist Awami League government still hold key duties under the present BNP government. Some of them may stay in their posts because of their administrative experience and skill. That is not unusual. To keep the state’s administration running smoothly, experienced officers must be used. But if the same logic is applied only to some chosen officers, and others are judged by their political past as an indirect sign of unfitness, then charges of double standards will rise.

Likewise, if an officer known to have been deprived under the past government gets an important duty later, his or her current performance must be judged along with the past claim of deprivation. If someone was deprived for political reasons, that injustice should be corrected. But a claim of deprivation does not by itself prove fitness for a post. Fairness in administrative appointment means judging every officer by the same professional standard.

If past experience counts as proof of merit for one officer, it must count the same way for another. And if someone faces allegations of incompetence or dishonesty, those must be checked on reliable information.

Appointment by need, or a chance for influence? Contract hiring of retired officers is not new in the administration. An officer may be rehired for special skill, experience or the ability to handle a certain duty. But without clear standards for such hiring, serving officers may feel deprived. This is more so when officers waiting for promotion serve for a long time without getting the expected chance, while a retired person gets an important post again. Then people question the logic of the decision.

Contract hiring and promotion of regular officers are being discussed under the present BNP led government too. Concerned circles allege that lobbying also affects these decisions. One acceptable argument for contract hiring is to keep the service of an experienced officer when the state needs it. The argument for promoting regular officers is to use their long experience, institutional knowledge and growth in leadership.

But no argument applies automatically in every situation. The problem starts when personal contacts, rather than the need for the post and the candidate’s merit, sit at the center of the decision. For contract hiring, there should be answers to some questions. Why is this officer needed? Can someone else do the job instead? What administrative benefit is expected from hiring him or her? For promotion of a regular officer, too, his or her work record and fitness for the post should be checked.

Is the same standard used for deprived officers? Judging officers known to be deprived under the past Awami League government may be part of administrative justice. But correcting deprivation and deciding a posting are not the same thing. If an officer faced unfair treatment in the past, the claim can be checked and a fix can be given. But the officer must also have the qualities needed for the post he or she gets later.

On the other hand, it is also wrong to judge all officers promoted under the past government by one political identity. Some of them may have been promoted by following the regular rules. Some may have done their duty on the basis of professional skill.

From DC to secretary: Some officers who served as deputy commissioners (DCs) under the fascist Awami League government have been posted as secretaries under the present BNP government. There is talk that this happened only because of personal ties, political links and strong lobbying. But some say this is no proof of wrongdoing. Even if it wants to, the government can appoint an officer who served as a DC under the past government as secretary. It would be based on his or her administrative experience, leadership, policy making skill and performance record.

But such postings raise an important question. If an officer is viewed with suspicion because he or she served under the past political setting, how are other officers from the same period being judged? Is the same standard applied to everyone? To answer this, it is not enough to just make a list of past postings of officers.

We must compare the time of their promotion, the relevant rules, their service records, their evaluations and their fitness for current duties. Among officers of the same level, some got promoted, some did not, and some did not get their contracts renewed. The reasons for decisions in these cases should also be checked.

Rules exist, but how well are they enforced? Under the code of conduct for government employees, seeking lobbying through others for personal gain can count as misconduct. But whether a rule was broken in a particular case depends on the exact words of the rule, the nature of the event and the legal process that applies. The main problem is that having rules and following them well are not the same thing.

If collecting recommendations from powerful people becomes a common tactic for promotion or posting, then making contacts can become as important as professional skill. This risks sending a wrong message inside the administration. It says doing good work is not enough, and you also need the backing of the right person.

Who will change the lobbying culture? The debate over merit in the administration is not new. After a change of government, new leaders promise to make the administration skilled, neutral and people friendly. But the reality of that promise must be tested through decisions on hiring, promotion and posting. Judging deprived officers of the past government, using experienced officers and winning the trust of new leaders are not proof of administrative reform on their own.

If an officer promoted under the past government serves under the present government too, the basis of his or her professional merit should be clear. In the same way, if a deprived officer of the past shows skill now, his or her work should also be judged.