How Bangladesh’s public administration fails its people

Illustration: TBS

I once took a file to the Deputy Secretary level of the Secretariat, accompanied by an officer of the same rank from an autonomous organisation. The officer's role was merely to forward the file. When I presented it, the Deputy Secretary instructed me to leave and return after three days.

I explained that the matter was urgent and fundamental, but he retorted that if he signed it immediately, people would assume he had nothing else to do. When I returned later, the file had mysteriously disappeared, and I had to pay a peon to retrieve it. 

This is not an isolated incident—countless citizens have faced similar bureaucratic absurdities. It is because Bangladesh's public administration has entrenched itself as an elite class, operating in a bubble of privilege and indifference. It refuses to listen, learn, or adapt, clinging to a hierarchical and bureaucratic structure inherited from the British colonial era. 

This systemic inertia is not just a relic of the past—it is an active barrier to progress, and if left unchecked, it will become increasingly difficult to reform.

The system is riddled with inefficiencies that defy logic. Why, for instance, must a letter be signed by everyone from the bottom up, only to return to the desk from the top down, wasting four to five days in the process? 

The much-touted 'digital transformation' is a farce. Despite emailing documents, officials insist on hard copies and still use Gmail instead of the official government domain. Why hasn't the government domain been adopted? E-tendering exists in name only, and online applications for land offices are a facade—money still changes hands under the table.

The priorities of those in government offices are glaringly misplaced. Their first demand is to receive their pay, regardless of their work output. A 2015 decision declared there would be no pay commission, and they were told to adjust to inflation. 

Yet no one holds them accountable for their failure to control inflation, which is crippling the entire country. Instead of addressing this, they are rewarded with increased allowances, further fuelling inflation. How many have been punished for this failure? None. The country suffers, while the elite bureaucracy thrives.

If we aspire to create a non-discriminatory society, why do we perpetuate the elite cadre system? Australia, for example, runs its entire country with just 16 secretaries. Why is our administration so bloated? Promotions have been handed out like candy, with many individuals elevating 50% beyond the required posts, citing "field experience." 

But is a police officer in charge of the Home Ministry truly more experienced? What about the Deputy Commissioners who pressure the government? We've had agriculturists running SPARSO. If experts can effectively run ministries like the National Board of Revenue, what is the purpose of this top-heavy public administration?

The quota system is another glaring issue. The promotion quota for deputy secretaries is less than 50%, and the rest is reserved for the elite. They are given cars, loans, and other perks, creating a class of second-class citizens. The age limit for job applications has been increased, but so has the age of those in power. This is not equality—it is privilege masquerading as policy.

Some of the current advisers have complained that their efforts to bring about change are often stymied by those below them. How can the country develop under such inefficiency? Those in power must be held accountable for their past misdeeds. 

Every decision, every failure, bears their signature. It doesn't take a genius to see that these individuals are incapable of bringing about real change. Accountability is not just necessary—it is urgent.

The proposal for reform lacks innovation. Initially, all members of the commission came from public administration. Only after protests were a few individuals from other sectors added. But how can those who created the system reform it? They are blind to its flaws. Previous reform proposals, dating back to 1972, fill libraries and online archives, yet none have led to meaningful change.

So, how can reform happen now? First, the number of bureaucrats must be reduced. The elite cadre system must be dismantled, and equality must be promoted to eliminate discrimination within the service. Public service should be about serving the people, not maintaining a bloated administrative structure. The term "administration" itself should be reconsidered—it should be called "public service."

Excessive benefits must be curtailed. Clear deadlines should be established for all tasks, and every department should have its own Human Resources Management (HRM) system. Appointments should be performance-based and contract-based, as in India. 

Without the guarantee of a lifetime job, employees will be compelled to work effectively. Job contracts should include layoff clauses to prevent workers from enjoying benefits without fulfilling their responsibilities.

Decentralisation is crucial. Not everyone can or should be based in Dhaka. Empowering local communities and ensuring their active participation in governance is key. Additionally, the system must be free from party affiliation, a significant challenge that must be addressed. Accountability must be universal. The BCS examination system must be reformed to create opportunities for talented individuals. Embracing technology will make the system more dynamic and efficient.

Implementing these changes will be difficult, but the alternative is dire. If these obstacles are not addressed, we may witness a power shift through public protests, as in 1996, or the rise of authoritarian figures, as in 2014, 2018, or even 2024. For those in power, the pursuit of privilege overshadows the notion of public service. The time for reform is now—before it's too late.
 

Sketch: TBS.

Subail bin Alam is a columnist on sustainable development. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.