Why are certain officials in the republic becoming owners of huge amounts of money?

The interim government has initiated several measures to restore discipline and increase efficiency in the administration. One of these measures includes adding new provisions to the Government Service Act 2018. It is important to note that referring to public servants as government employees is inherently misleading. A state requires four essential components for its formation: sovereignty, defined territory, population, and government. Among these, the government is the most fragile and the only variable component; the rest remain constant.

The people are the true owners of the state. The government merely governs on their behalf through a mandate. At regular intervals, the government’s performance is evaluated through elections. Thus, the government must always remain accountable to the people, not the other way around. What we call government property is actually state property, owned solely by the people. Confusion arises when the state and government are treated as the same. If we can evaluate them separately, many problems will naturally resolve.

Many of the new provisions being proposed in the amendment to the Government Service Act, 2018, were already present in the 1979 Government Employees (Special Provisions) Ordinance. The proposed changes would prohibit government officials from engaging in protests or demonstrations on the streets under the guise of demands. Work stoppages and sit-ins would also be banned, including inside the Secretariat. No one may encourage others to abstain from joining work. Violation of these conditions will lead to strict disciplinary action. Depending on the severity, dismissal without investigation within eight days is also proposed.

The accused official will receive a notice of 2 to 5 days to defend themselves. If the explanation is unsatisfactory, dismissal may follow after a three-day notice. After taking office, a group of officials in the Secretariat have reportedly engaged in conspiracies to embarrass the government, causing delays in administrative functions. In such a situation, alternative measures are essential. Without stern actions against those who create disorder, they could become dangerous for the government. Strict action is also necessary against those who used organizational names like Bangabandhu Parishad or Zia Parishad for political purposes during previous administrations.

Any government relies on the sincerity and support of bureaucrats and state institution employees. Without their cooperation, a government cannot achieve its objectives. Those we refer to as government officials are, in fact, servants of the republic. The government owns no property; it is merely a custodian of the state’s assets. If it were the actual owner, the government could have used or even smuggled assets without being accountable to anyone. Since it is not, misuse must be justified and held accountable. Republic officials should have no political identity or ambition. Their main role is to implement the orders of an elected government. If they disagree with any order, they may record their opinion in writing. However, if the higher authority insists, they must comply.

Legally, an official may express independent views, but in practice, this rarely happens. Officials from the lowest to the highest rank often echo the same note. Subordinates typically don’t dissent. They fear that going against superiors may harm their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), which significantly influence their careers. This one-way reporting system must change. Just as senior officials evaluate juniors, the reverse should also be allowed to create a balance of power.

The amendment to the Government Service Act, 2018, is logical. However, another provision should be included: no employee should be allowed to engage in partisan political activities within the institution while in service. Since the introduction of democracy in 1991, political groups have formed within state institutions, especially under autocratic regimes, often under the name of Bangabandhu Parishad. Those engaged in such political practices are opportunistic and greedy. They support the ruling party when it is in power but vanish once it leaves office.

Such employees are never true well-wishers of any party, as their political activity ceases when the party is out of power. Their misconduct can tarnish the image of a political party. They are political opportunists, using politics either to escape past misdeeds or to secure future gains. Employees who engaged in political activities between 1991 and July 2024 should be identified and dismissed. Retirees may have their pension benefits suspended. At the very least, members of Bangabandhu Parishad's executive committees should face disciplinary actions. Such steps would deter future political activism in state institutions.

Today, work in the Secretariat and other state-owned institutions has slowed. One major reason is that politically active officials who dominated under the previous government now live in fear. They are trying to bring the old government back to power to avoid punishment.

The government has no inherent power or strength. It must rely on institutional staff to carry out responsibilities. Therefore, if civil servants do not support the government sincerely, no government can function properly. A historical example is the medieval ruler Muhammad bin Tughlaq. Though visionary and innovative, he failed because his officials didn’t cooperate. His initiatives, like introducing paper currency or shifting the capital from Delhi to Devagiri for security, were ahead of their time but failed due to opposition from bureaucrats.

Whichever party forms the next government after national elections, they will face challenges. Thus, unconditional support from bureaucrats is essential. Exemplary punishment should be ensured for non-cooperation. Any official who wants to pursue politics must resign. Even retirees must surrender their benefits before engaging in politics. Job and politics cannot coexist.

A person must choose their career path at the beginning. If someone works with integrity in public service, joining politics should be unthinkable. However, we now witness public servants amassing wealth. The truth is, if someone performs their duties honestly, managing basic expenses is challenging, let alone accumulating assets. Once, corrupt people were socially shunned; now, wealth alone commands respect, regardless of its source. This moral shift must change.

M. A. Khalek is a former banker and writer on economic affairs.