Mohsin Siddiqui (Chief Reporter)
Prime Minister’s desire to manage the federal government through a select group of trusted bureaucrats is beginning to cause significant friction within the administration. This strategy, which aims to streamline decision-making and enhance efficiency, has instead led to tensions and disagreements among key government officials and ministries.
A notable example of this friction is seen in the Planning Commission. Deputy Chairman Jehanzeb Khan made headlines for bypassing Planning Minister Ahsan Iqbal in preparing the Public Sector Development Program (PSDP) for the next fiscal year. This move violated established protocols and underscored the growing divide between the bureaucrats trusted by the Prime Minister and the elected officials who traditionally oversee such processes.
Minister Ahsan Iqbal expressed his dissatisfaction with the Deputy Chairman’s unilateral decision, highlighting the importance of collaboration and adherence to procedural norms. The lack of consultation not only breached rules but also created uncertainty about the direction of critical developmental projects and their alignment with the government’s broader objectives.
Similar tensions have surfaced in the Petroleum Ministry. The Minister of Petroleum recently expressed frustration over the conduct of his ministry’s bureaucracy. The discord between the minister and his bureaucrats reflects deeper issues within the ministry, where the balance of power and decision-making authority has become a contentious issue.
The minister’s grievances reportedly stem from bureaucrats’ reluctance to cooperate fully and align with his policy directives. This reluctance has led to delays in key projects and policy implementations, adversely affecting the ministry’s efficiency and performance. The situation highlights the challenges faced when elected officials and career bureaucrats struggle to work in harmony, each holding different perspectives on governance and management.
Early signs of friction are also beginning to emerge in two other important ministries, although specifics have yet to be fully disclosed. These tensions indicate a broader issue within the government, where the Prime Minister’s approach to centralized bureaucratic control is increasingly coming into conflict with the traditional roles and expectations of elected officials.
The Prime Minister’s preference for working closely with a select group of bureaucrats is rooted in a desire to implement his vision more effectively and ensure that key policies are executed without delay. This approach is intended to cut through red tape and foster a more efficient government.
This strategy is not without its drawbacks. The reliance on a small circle of trusted bureaucrats can marginalize other officials, leading to feelings of exclusion and frustration. When decision-making becomes centralized, it can also create bottlenecks and reduce the transparency of governmental processes.
The emerging frictions within the government have significant implications for governance and policy implementation. The lack of cohesion and cooperation between ministers and bureaucrats can lead to delays in critical projects, inefficient use of resources, and a general decline in governmental effectiveness.
Furthermore, these internal conflicts can undermine public confidence in the government’s ability to manage and deliver on its promises. As key ministries grapple with internal discord, the broader agenda of development and progress risks being derailed.
For the government to function effectively, it is crucial to foster a collaborative environment where both elected officials and bureaucrats work together towards common goals. This requires clear communication, mutual respect, and adherence to established protocols.
Ministers should be empowered to lead their respective ministries, with bureaucrats providing the necessary support and expertise. At the same time, bureaucrats should feel valued and respected, with their insights and experience contributing meaningfully to policy decisions.
