|
With the present moral, or should we say amoral, parameters in
public governance, it will not be foolhardy to think that any
government proposal for infrastructure where large sums are involved
must be viewed with suspicion. Most citizens now think guilty,
until or unless proven otherwise. Be there public bidding or
government to government negotiations, be these done by official
foreign government assistance or private sector suppliers, it will
not be unfair under present public knowledge and contemporary
experience to think there is rent-seeking involved. And rent-
seeking will not go away with the present dispensation or any
replacement to it. It is unfortunately an ingrained universal
attitude that covers not only those in government but those outside,
including specially those in the opposition with plans and
expectations to become government.
What is to be done practically and quickly is
presently unknown at least to me. But in the long run, there
is the critical necessity of establishing and protecting a genuine,
merit-based civil service system that will stay in place through
changes of administration, having been appointed in the first place
by an independent, competent and unassailable vetting process that
withstands the interference of political personalities.
Civil service positions should be untouchable to
politicians, including the highest officials of the land. The
Constitution has provided for this by making the Civil Service
Commission a constitutionally independent body. While this is
so in theory and by constitutional fiat, it has not been practiced
in everyday governance, particularly lately. Civil Service
Commission appointments have also been made to feel political
repercussions. Going through the Commission on Appointments
alone is a gauntlet of political and unprofessional demands that are
a portent of things to come for the civil service official.
These ordeals come every year with the budget hearings. Legislators
demand concessional appointments of unqualified political supporters
to Civil Service positions that should be only for the
professionally and morally qualified, under pain of budgetary cuts.
The executive department in its own way has done even more such
damage being the ultimate appointing power of political supporters
with no other qualifications for service. Thus, both the
executive and the legislative are equally guilty of subverting the
civil service and, in a way, the Constitution.
If a strong and independent Civil Service were
in place, invulnerable to political storms and changes which would
allow them to remain constant with each administration that comes,
an expert, independent and protected corps of government employees
could be in every department professionally performing governance.
Left to them all government proposals and projects could be passed
through rigid standards and uncompromising tests away from nefarious
influences and graft-prone impositions of those who today effect the
corruption that has overwhelmed us.
It should also be mentioned that a civil service
system that is as it should be will attract professionally competent
patriotic citizens who wish to serve their country and will be
allowed to do so. As permanent government staff, there will be
no learning curve to overcome with each new administration. A system
with this character will be able to fearlessly stand up and be heard
when necessary against corrupt proposals and those who promote them.
Public opinion will be on their side once the public has the respect
for the institution of the civil service. This will redound to
better governance, more transparent service and a less suspicious
citizenry.
The independence and competence of the civil
service as an institution should be an election issue in the coming
presidential electoral campaign. Candidates should be
questioned on how they propose to treat it, particularly in regard
to its Constitutional independence.
|
