The history of administrative reform commissions in this region is long and diverse, beginning during the British colonial era, when several reform commissions were established with the aim of creating a strong administrative structure. Notable commissions are: the Aitchison Commission (1886), the Islington Commission (1912), the Lee Commission (1924), and the Simon Commission (1930).
These commissions aimed to create opportunities for the local population to be included in administration and to establish a bureaucracy capable of sustaining British rule. Although some reform initiatives were taken during the Pakistan era, they failed to have a significant impact due to the lack of democracy and military rule.
In post-independence Bangladesh, several commissions were formed for administrative reform and restructuring. In 1971, after independence, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman established the 'Civil Administration Restoration Committee' for administrative restructuring. Subsequently, in 1972, the 'Administrative Re-Organization Committee' and the 'National Pay Scale Commission" were formed. Through these commissions, ministries were reorganized, constitutional institutions were established, and a new salary structure was created.
During Ziaur Rahman's rule, a 'Pay and Service Commission' was formed with the goal of restructuring administration and improving the salary framework. His successor, Hussain Muhammad Ershad, established ten reform commissions, including the 'Martial Law Committee', 'the Administrative Reform and Reorganization Committee (CARR)', and the National Pay Commission. Significant changes included upgrading police stations to upazilas and introducing a new salary structure.
After the restoration of democracy in 1991, the BNP government formed a reform committee for administrative restructuring. This committee, however, failed to submit any recommendations. Subsequently, in 1996 and 1997, the Awami League government formed the Administrative Reform Commission (ARC) and the Public Administration Reform Commission (PARC) with the aim of increasing transparency, accountability, and efficiency.
In 2005, the BNP government passed the "Tax Ombudsman Law," which helped ensure financial transparency. The military-backed caretaker government established the 'Regulatory Reform Commission' in 2007 and took reform measures to separate the executive branch from the judiciary.
In 2009, the Awami League government returned to power and attempted to introduce a performance-based evaluation system (PBES) for administrative reform aimed at increasing public participation and administrative efficiency. However, most of the recommendations from these commissions were not implemented by the government. The failure of administrative reform commissions can be attributed to several longstanding issues.
First, there is a lack of political commitment. Political parties often promise administrative reform during elections, but fail to take effective measures to implement those promises once in power. As a result, most reform initiatives remain only on paper, and the public does not reap the benefits.
Second, the legacy of colonial bureaucratic structures continues to persist in Bangladesh. The bureaucracies established during British rule are centralized and lack transparency. Government officials often view change as a threat to their power and influence. They perceive administrative reform as harmful to their status and privileges. As a result, they obstruct reform efforts and slow down their implementation.
Third, individuals with business interests often oppose administrative reforms when they enter politics. Their primary concern is to protect their personal or business advantages, which hinders the development of the administration and public welfare. Administrative reform is not implemented successfully.
Fourth, patron-client relationships have compromised the neutrality of the administration. Loyal officials of the ruling party receive promotions, while those with opposing views are labeled as ineffective or designated as "officers on special duty" (OSD). Such favoritism weakens the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration. The governments oppose administrative reform by showing favouritism to their favoured bureaucrats resulting in hampering the progress of reform activities.
A lack of institutional capacity is also a major barrier to administrative reform. Many departments and agencies lack adequate training, skills, or technical knowledge to carry out reform activities. Additionally, the weakness of the rule of law and the lack of administrative autonomy further obstruct proper implementation of reforms.
Moreover, the lack of citizen participation poses a significant challenge to administrative reform in Bangladesh. It is essential to consult relevant stakeholders and ensure their participation for successful implementation of reforms. However, government officials often show reluctance to accept public opinions or suggestions. Even when stakeholders are consulted, effective steps are rarely taken to implement their recommendations. This lack of consultation and citizen participation weakens institutional capacity and hampers the progress of administrative reforms.
The current interim government presents an exceptional example in the country’s history. This government has been established primarily for the purpose of state reform and is operating without direct support from political parties. This unique situation is creating new possibilities for the country's development and reform. Since this government has no visible political interests, the public hopes it will succeed in reforming the country. However, there is a concern about how long this government will remain in power. Therefore, some short-term recommendations for reforms that can be implemented quickly, along with a long-term vision for a comprehensive development plan, are essential.
A fundamental change in administrative culture is crucial to making public administration more citizen-oriented. The British established modern bureaucracy in this country to prolong their colonial rule. During that time, serving the people was not the primary focus; rather, a centralized and controlling administrative structure was created for the benefit of British rule. Consequently, that bureaucracy was never dedicated to serving the public.
From the Pakistani era until 1990, bureaucracy was often used as a tool of military rule. After the restoration of democracy in 1991, the influence of politicization in administration began to become evident. After 2008, bureaucracy lost its neutrality and began to prioritize the implementation of party agendas. The Awami League government appointed its supportive officials to various key positions in the administration, causing a gradual disconnection between the administration and the public.
In this context, one of the current reform committee's goals is to make administration citizen-oriented. This is an extremely challenging task. In the past, the administration has repeatedly failed to meet public expectations because its main objective was to implement government orders, not to dedicate itself to serving the people.
Emphasis must be placed on training and ethics for officials to change administrative culture. They must be instilled with the understanding that the true owners of the country are the people and that the primary goal of administration is to serve them. If the principle of accountability to the public is firmly established among officials, the administration will genuinely become citizen-oriented and work for the welfare of the people.
If transparency and accountability are ensured in administration, it will not only improve efficiency but also facilitate the successful implementation of citizen-oriented governance. Currently, only senior officials evaluate the annual confidential reports (ACRs) of subordinate officials. However, there is no direct accountability of the administration to the general public. Consequently, the public often suffers from various inconveniences when accessing services.
To overcome this situation, it is crucial to ensure direct public participation and accountability in administrative activities. A complaint box could be placed in every government office, or an online complaint submission system could be established. This would allow citizens to bring their grievances and complaints directly to the attention of the administration, making officials more attentive and responsible in their duties.
Additionally, the government and the Anti-Corruption Commission can analyze these complaints to quickly identify corrupt and dishonest officials, which would play a significant role in preventing corruption within the administration.
The cadre-based conflict in Bangladesh's public administration is not new. Similar to other countries, the ongoing tension between general officials and specialized officials negatively impacts overall administrative improvement. Traditionally, general officials hold convenient positions and exercise executive power, while specialised officials’ power is largely limited to technical matters.
One of the main reasons for dissatisfaction among specialized officials is that important positions in the secretariat are occupied by general officials. Even in cases where specialized knowledge is essential, general officials often retain control. This situation obstructs the proper recognition of specialized officials' skills and contributions.
To resolve this conflict, it is necessary to establish an institutional framework where appointments and promotions of specialized cadre members are made solely from within their ranks. This will allow for proper recognition of specialized officials' contributions and create a balanced environment for administrative improvement.
To successfully achieve the goals of administrative reform, it is essential to develop plans considering the demands of the times, environmental challenges, and the capacity and objectives of the relevant administrative structure. However, the role of regional and international influencers or factors in the reform process cannot be overlooked. Strong states, global financial institutions, and international organizations often seek to influence the direction of these reforms due to their own agendas and interests.
Therefore, the activities of administrative reform must ensure integrated participation from all levels of society, rather than relying solely on bureaucrats. A monitoring committee comprising individuals from various classes and professions could be formed to oversee the progress of reforms and facilitate their successful implementation.
Reform is an ongoing process, especially administrative reform, which involves short, medium, and long-term activities. This interim government should start this journey with at least a few minimal reform initiatives. It is important to remember that past administrative activities often failed due to a lack of political support and bureaucratic obstacles.
Proposing reforms and implementing them are two different things. From the outset, our focus should be on trying to gain political support and then attempting to implement specific reform proposals based on that support. An overly ambitious reform proposal may create optimism, but without implementation, such proposals can lead to long-term disappointment.
Syeda Lasna Kabir is professor at the Department of Public Administration, Dhaka University
Mohammad Isa Ibn Belal is a researcher