Photo: Collected
Against the backdrop of many years of allegations of irregularities and corruption surrounding the transfer and posting of government officials, the decision to introduce a lottery system for the first time in the transfer of sub-registrars is being seen as an exceptional step. If this initiative, taken with the aim of ensuring transparency, proves fruitful, it may be considered an example in stopping the transfer trade in public administration.
The law ministry recently said in a press release that a decision has been taken to make postings through a lottery with the aim of bringing transparency to the transfer process of sub-registrars. The lottery is scheduled to be held at the conference room of the law ministry at the appointed time. Transfers to the posts designated for the sub-registry offices of Dhaka district will be made by lottery from among sub-registrars working at sub-registry offices in various districts of the country. The process is to be completed in the presence of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Md Asaduzzaman.
Allegations of corruption centring transfers and postings in government service are nothing new in Bangladesh. There have long been allegations of bribery surrounding important posts in land-related government offices. The post of sub-registrar is not outside these allegations either. It is alleged that unethical transactions are resorted to in order to get postings in some financially lucrative and important areas. As a result, if an official spends a large sum of money to get to a post, there remains a risk of a tendency to recover that money after taking charge. The direct victims of this are ordinary people.
This culture of transfer trade is not confined to sub-registry offices alone. There are allegations of irregularities at various levels of the administration over postings to preferred workplaces, important posts or financially advantageous areas. Allegations of huge sums of money changing hands in the past over certain posts and workplaces have also appeared in the media. If someone takes charge of a post by spending money, there is a risk that a mindset of recovering that investment will develop. And from there the cycle of corruption can gain an even stronger foundation.
Similar allegations are also heard about postings at various levels of the law enforcement agencies. Allegations of large sums of money changing hands in the past over getting charge of important posts at police stations in upscale and important areas have come to light. There are allegations of money changing hands not only over senior posts, but also over comparatively lower-level postings. If these allegations are true, the question arises – if an officer or employee pays a bribe to get a responsibility, how honestly and impartially will he be able to work after taking charge?
Allegations of irregularities have also been raised at various times over the transfer and posting of lower court judges. If there are allegations of financial transactions surrounding transfers and postings in an institution as important as the judiciary, it can damage people’s trust in the entire justice system.
Controversy over postings and promotions had also arisen during the interim government led by Dr Muhammad Yunus. The allegation that bribes had openly changed hands for postings and promotions at the secretary level also came to the fore at that time. At the same time, there was widespread discussion about allegations of irregularities and financial transactions in the appointment of deputy commissioners (DCs). Various allegations and sensational information surrounding important postings in the administration were published in the media at that time. As a result, these very incidents indicate that even though the government changed, the culture of irregularities surrounding transfers, postings and promotions was not easily removed.
There have also long been allegations of irregularities and financial transactions over important posts in various government institutions, including the Forest Department, the Public Works Department, the Roads and Highways Department and the Local Government Engineering Department. In some places, posts in particular districts or workplaces are considered more attractive, and competition arises among officials to get to those posts. It is alleged that a culture of unethical transactions has grown up by capitalising on this competition. Allegations of huge sums of money changing hands in the past over certain high-level posts have also been published.
There are also allegations of trade surrounding the posting of doctors. That a doctor has to pay up to lakhs of taka to be transferred to Dhaka is a long-standing allegation. Many doctors are not interested in working outside Dhaka. One of the reasons for this is the excessive Dhaka-centricity of the country’s administrative, economic and social system. As a result, a desire to stay in the capital is created, and allegations of various kinds of lobbying and financial transactions arise to get a transfer to the desired workplace.
The large-scale transfer of doctors and employees at the Directorate General of Health Services during the Yunus era was also discussed. It is learnt that the chairs of three thousand medical officers and 500 employees were reshuffled. There is no precedent of such a large-scale transfer at the directorate in such a short time in the past – such discussion also took place in the circles concerned. It is alleged that many of the transferred doctors did not join their new workplaces at the district and upazila levels. As a result, a fear arose that the manpower crisis in healthcare at the remote and upazila levels would become even more acute.
A large section of government employees want to work in the capital – this is the reality. But in a country of 18 crore people, if everyone wants to work in Dhaka itself, how will the vast population outside Dhaka get government services? The impact of this Dhaka-centricity is visible in almost every field, including healthcare, administration, law and order, land and engineering. And the existing system of transfers and postings also has a big role behind this.
In this reality, the decision to introduce a lottery system in the transfer of sub-registrars can be seen as an important administrative reform. Its biggest advantage is that the scope for personal influence, lobbying or financial transactions in determining which official will go where will shrink. If postings are made by lottery from a set list of qualified officials, transparency in the transfer process will increase and the scope for irregularities will decrease.
However, there is no scope to assume that corruption will stop completely merely by introducing a lottery. Alongside the lottery, the officials’ qualifications, efficiency, discipline, the needs of the workplace and the matter of serving for a fixed tenure also need to be taken into consideration. At the same time, it is essential that the entire lottery process be open, technology-based and auditable. Only then will the acceptability of this initiative increase further.
If this system succeeds in the case of sub-registrars, its application to other important government posts may also be considered. For example, in the appointment of deputy commissioners, a transparent fit list of officials who meet the set eligibility criteria can be prepared, and workplaces can be determined from it by lottery on the basis of a policy. Similarly, it is possible to introduce a transparent and automated system as required in the transfer and posting of OCs of police stations or doctors.
If an official gets charge of a post without a bribe or lobbying, a kind of moral obligation is created on him in discharging that responsibility. Then there should be no mindset of recovering money spent in exchange for getting the post. Rather, he will try to hold on to his position through efficiency, honesty and accountability to the people – that is the natural expectation.
So the initiative to introduce a lottery in the transfer of sub-registrars must not be seen merely as a change in a transfer process. It can mark the beginning of a new idea for establishing transparency in public administration and against the transfer trade. If the government wishes, it can evaluate this experience and take the initiative to introduce similar effective systems in other ministries and government institutions as well.
It is difficult to get the desired result in reducing corruption merely by enacting laws or holding out the fear of punishment. The structural weaknesses that create opportunities for corruption must also be removed. If transfers and postings are one of the areas of that weakness, then an initiative to ensure transparency there is undoubtedly important.
This initiative of a lottery system in the transfer of sub-registrars is therefore a promising beginning. If it can be implemented properly and evaluated regularly, it can play a positive role not only in reducing the transfer trade in government service but also in raising accountability, impartiality and the quality of public service in the administration.
