A few days back, the country representatives of three major donor agencies, the head of the central bank, a few former and serving bureaucrats and a noted economist at a discussion meeting organised by a private think-tank, the Power and Participation Research Centre (PPRC), had again discussed the issue and gave their enlightened opinion.
Taking part in the discussion, Country Director of the World Bank Christine I Wallich advised all concerned to seek micro-solutions to governance problem rather than trying larger reforms. She said 'tracking system' of performance-based data of government officials could play an important role towards improving public service.
Bangladesh Resident Mission Chief of the World Bank Hua Du said e-governance would help ensure greater transparency and accountability of the government agencies. She admitted the fact Bangladesh cannot improve governance overnight and the progress needs to be incremental.
Country Representative of the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom David Wood maintained that country-owned development agenda and civil service reforms are two key elements in improving governance in Bangladesh.
The Bangladeshi participants laid emphasis on the effective role on the part of the regulatory bodies and reduction of bureaucratic layers in the administration.
All the discussants hammered on one particular point -- transparency and accountability of civil servants involved in service delivery. In this context, some of them suggested small-scale reforms to make a beginning and some others pointed to the need for gearing up the under-performing regulatory institutions.
But for reasons best known to them, the participants in the discussion did not mention about the role of the political leadership and some of the key national institutions in governance. Their role actually is the key factor in improving governance. It is the failure of these major players that has contributed much to the continuous decline in the quality of governance.
There is no denying that civil servants who are manning government agencies from the centre down to upazila levels are responsible for delivering goods to the people. But it is the political leadership at the helm of the statecraft takes decisions and oversees their execution. The people after every five years elect the politicians to administer the affairs of the state and fulfill their electoral promises. Government officials are paid servants of the Republic, not people's representatives. The politicians holding the rein of the administration are accountable to the people and the public servants to their political masters.
Governance problem, if there is any because of poor performance of the government servants, thus, is the net result of the incompetence on the part of the individuals who have occupied the seat of power in turn. Had the country's leadership been honest, sincere and competent, the bureaucracy would have no other way but to perform. Everybody feels that there should be an efficient system in place to ensure transparency and accountability of the government servants. At the same time, the electorates expect the same from the country's political leadership. The country's Constitution has made it mandatory for the government in power to maintain transparency and accountability. The Jatiya Sangsad (JS) -- the national parliament -- has a built-in mechanism to ensure the same. But, unfortunately, the governments, democratic or otherwise, in Bangladesh have neither bothered much about their own transparency and accountability nor about the same of the government servants. The JS has been a place of acrimonious political debate of little substance, boycotts and walkouts.
Transparency and accountability are two proven antidotes to corruption. If the political masters of the bureaucracy are corrupt, they would never seek transparency and accountability from their subordinates. Rather, they would have every reason to work hand in glove with corrupt elements in the bureaucracy to make their own fortunes.
The watchdog bodies which are responsible for ensuring transparency and accountability in the spheres of economy and politics are not allowed to perform their role effectively if politicians of dubious character can manage their entry into the corridors of power. The glaring example is the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) that came into being after lot of persuasion and foot-dragging. The ACC top boss these days is talking tough. But sceptics have strong reservations about the ACC's capacity to deliver under the prevailing circumstances.
Thus, quality of politics and politicians does matter most in the pursuit of good governance. If politicians while in power indulge in corruption and amass wealth giving a damn to their own accountability and transparency, then good governance will continue to be as elusive as ever.
Autor(en)/Author(s): Shamsul Huq Zahid
Quelle/Source:The Financial Express, 02.08.2006
