Public administration exists to serve citizens. The Constitution and the laws of Bangladesh entrust public servants with the responsibility of providing lawful, efficient, and impartial services to the people.
Yet, despite decades of administrative reforms, many citizens continue to face unnecessary delays, bureaucratic indifference, and procedural obstacles in securing their legitimate rights.
One of the most worrying features of the current administrative culture is the gradual emergence of a “who cares?” mindset within sections of the public service.
Since salaries and benefits are guaranteed irrespective of performance, some officials have little incentive to resolve citizens’ grievances.
While many public servants remain dedicated and professional, the actions of a relatively small number of indifferent officials often undermine public confidence in the entire administrative system.
Citizens seeking remedies frequently encounter a familiar pattern. They approach the concerned office only to learn that the head of the institution is attending meetings or is otherwise unavailable.
After considerable effort, they may finally secure an appointment, only to find that their application is merely forwarded to another section without any clear instruction or timeline.
In many cases, the application disappears into the bureaucratic process, and no decision is communicated to the applicant.
Such practices are inconsistent with the responsibilities of public office.
A responsible authority should carefully examine every application, hear the concerned parties where necessary, verify the supporting documents, issue a reasoned decision within a reasonable timeframe, and ensure regular follow-up where further inquiry is required.
These are not extraordinary expectations but fundamental principles of good administration.
The consequences of administrative negligence extend far beyond inconvenience.
When citizens fail to obtain justice through administrative channels, they often have no alternative but to seek relief before the courts.
Ironically, litigation arising from the negligence of public officials is frequently defended using taxpayers’ money under the banner of protecting government interests.
The result is a double burden on the public: Citizens first suffer administrative injustice and then finance the legal costs of defending that injustice.
This practice deserves serious reconsideration. Where a court or a competent authority determines that litigation resulted directly from an official’s unjustified negligence or failure to discharge lawful duties, the legal expenses should, subject to due process, be recoverable from the responsible official rather than from the public treasury.
Such a policy would create a powerful incentive for timely decision-making while discouraging unnecessary litigation.
At the same time, government-funded legal defense should remain available where litigation genuinely concerns the protection of public property, prevention of fraud, or safeguarding legitimate state interests.
The effectiveness of many administrative reform initiatives also deserves honest evaluation. Over the years, significant public resources have been spent on programs promoting “service simplification,” “good governance,” “innovation,” and “integrity.”
These are undoubtedly important values. However, the critical question is whether these initiatives have produced measurable improvements in the quality of public services.
Public servants already have a legal obligation to provide efficient, transparent, and citizen-friendly services. If existing laws and service rules are properly implemented, many additional programs may become unnecessary.
Too often, district and sub-district administrations have been required to devote substantial time to meetings, workshops, reporting exercises, and ceremonial activities associated with these initiatives, reducing the time available for their primary responsibility -- serving the public.
Meaningful administrative reform therefore requires a shift from rhetoric to accountability.
Senior authorities should regularly inspect public offices and review pending matters. Office heads should remain accessible except where urgent official duties require otherwise, with routine meetings increasingly conducted through virtual platforms. Periodic public hearings conducted by ministers, secretaries, and heads of departments could also strengthen direct engagement between citizens and public institutions.
Most importantly, local administrations should be allowed to concentrate on the responsibilities assigned under their statutory mandates instead of being burdened with low-impact administrative campaigns.
Ultimately, public confidence cannot be restored through slogans alone. It depends on whether citizens receive timely decisions, fair treatment, and effective remedies when administrative failures occur.
A truly citizen-centred public administration demands more than institutional reform. It requires a cultural transformation in which every public official understands that accountability is not optional but an essential duty of public service.
Replacing the prevailing “who cares?” culture with one of responsibility, professionalism, and accountability is therefore not merely an administrative objective but indispensable for strengthening the rule of law, protecting citizens’ rights, and rebuilding trust between the state and the people.
Md Mizanul Hoque Chowdhury is former Additional Secretary, Ministry of Public Administration, Bangladesh.
