Bangladesh’s administrative framework is a legacy of British colonial rule. While it carries some positive attributes—such as merit-based recruitment through competitive examinations, in-service training, internal discipline (with a few exceptions), regulatory provisions, and a strong institutional framework—there are significant criticisms. A key grievance against the system is its perceived distance from the general public.
This criticism is not entirely unfounded. People often view the administration as a tool to uphold the ruling class's authority rather than a service-oriented body dedicated to the welfare of the masses. Theoretically, the state operates under the guidance of political leadership. The legislature enacts laws, and the executive formulates policies, which are then implemented by the administration. However, the ideal expectation that political decisions should reflect public aspirations is often unmet, making it challenging for the administration to fulfill people’s expectations. Allegations of corruption and inefficiency further mar the administration's reputation.
A review of its 200-year history reveals that these issues are relatively recent and paradoxical, as the administration now functions under an independent state structure. Unfortunately, negative traits inherited from colonial practices—such as a tendency toward corruption, arrogance, obsession with rank and privileges, imposition of decisions without consultation, and bureaucratic delays in decision-making—persist. Even after decades of independence, the administration has struggled to break free from this cycle, adding newer challenges to the mix.
Structurally and policy-wise, Bangladesh’s administration mirrors the UK’s civil service. In the UK, a politically neutral career civil service complements its parliamentary system. While Bangladesh has a structurally similar non-political permanent civil service, its impartiality has been questioned over the years.
Criticism of Bangladesh’s administration primarily emanates from civil society and is widely echoed in the media. Although objective research on these issues is scarce, public perception about the state, government, and administration cannot be dismissed. In public life, perception holds as much importance as reality. Citizens often base decisions, such as voting, not on empirical evidence but on their perceptions.
The best way to address corruption and inefficiency is by ensuring transparency and accountability. This can be achieved through systemic reforms, technology integration, and linking performance with rewards and penalties. A Public Administration Reform Commission could prioritize these aspects. However, administrative reform cannot be undertaken in isolation. It is intrinsically tied to constitutional reform, police and judicial system reforms, and the restructuring of institutions like the Election Commission and the Anti-Corruption Commission. It is hoped that local government systems will also receive due attention in discussions on state restructuring.
The administration of the future should not be authoritarian but service-oriented. Its primary responsibility should focus on development, specifically improving the quality of life for citizens. To quote Shankha Ghosh, it should not be a development that merely “stands menacingly across the road with a sword in hand.” Society is ever-changing, and so are public aspirations. To meet the evolving demands of the future, the administration must be mentally prepared and professionally capable.
The writer is a former Cabinet Secretary
BDST: 1214 HRS, JAN 13, 2025
