- Civil service must evolve from a symbol of privilege to a platform of national inclusion
Whenever a socio-economic or political crisis arises in our society, a commonly echoed prescription is “civil service reforms.” This phrase, however, has become a political cliché—repeated routinely by commentators, politicians, and analysts—yet rarely unpacked with clarity. In most popular discourse, civil service reform is narrowly understood as a technical or administrative exercise focused on the elite cadre of bureaucrats, such as the Central Superior Services (CSPs) or federal and provincial administrative officers.
As a result, discussions on reform are typically confined to reshuffling bureaucrats, tweaking promotion rules, or digitizing service delivery. Such a limited interpretation reduces civil service reform to surface-level adjustments. This narrow lens not only overlooks the broader systemic issues but also reflects a deeper misunderstanding of the state’s functioning—especially in post-colonial contexts like Pakistan.
In its ideal form, the civil service is not just a bureaucracy—it is the machinery through which the state interacts with its citizens. This includes institutions such as the judiciary, legislature, local governments, and various public bodies. Collectively, they shape the character of the state and are responsible for delivering public services. Yet in many post-colonial societies, this machinery has failed to serve. Instead of acting as a vehicle for empowerment and welfare, it continues the colonial logic of control, extraction, and suppression.
Following independence, the colonial rulers were replaced by domestic elites, but the logic and structure of the state remained largely intact. The apparatus that once served imperial interests now functions to protect the privileges of the local elite. The civil service, therefore, did not evolve into a mechanism of democratic governance but became a symbol of class preservation and power consolidation.
One of the most alarming consequences of this inherited framework is that civil service positions — particularly in administrative branches — have become associated with prestige, personal security, and social dominance. In a society where social safety nets are weak and public services are unreliable, government jobs are perceived not as platforms for service, but as shields against life’s insecurities and as ladders to social ascension. As a result, the state apparatus serves a small, privileged class, while the vast majority of citizens are excluded from meaningful participation.
This dynamic echoes Anatol Lieven’s observation in Pakistan: A Hard Country, where he describes the state as composed of “states within the state”— networks of patronage and informal power embedded within the formal institutions of governance. These fragmented networks undermine merit, erode accountability, and perpetuate exclusion.
Unfortunately, civil service reform debates tend to focus only on the most visible faces of this dysfunctional structure — the bureaucrats — while the deeper, systemic issues remain untouched. Institutional reshuffling, performance dashboards, and digitization cannot cure a civil service whose ethos is rooted in hierarchy and privilege rather than service and empathy. The challenge is not merely structural; it is also psychological and cultural.
The problem lies in the internalized sense of entitlement among elites, and a societal belief that public office is a personal fiefdom rather than a trust. Therefore, genuine reform must go beyond institutional fixes. What is needed is a social repatterning — a fundamental reimagining of our expectations, values, and civic norms around governance, public service, and citizenship.
Such repatterning must begin at the cultural level. We need to redefine the very purpose of public service. Civil service should not be a means of escaping life’s insecurities, but a platform for engaging meaningfully with society. This demands cultivating a political and educational environment that promotes democratic values, service ethics, and social responsibility. It also means confronting the inequalities that make access to these jobs so uneven—by geography, class, and gender.
A reformed civil service must reflect the diversity of the nation, not just in numbers but in spirit. Only then can it serve as a unifying force for national integration and social justice. Civil service should no longer be a gated community of privilege, but an accessible platform of common good.
In conclusion, civil service reform is not about changing the furniture in government offices. It is about humanizing the state. It is about reducing the emotional and physical distance between the people and those who govern them. A meaningful reform agenda must aim to build a governance model based not on fear, patronage, or hierarchy—but on empathy, inclusion, and accountability.
Without this broader transformation, our talk of reform will remain cosmetic and ineffective. To build a just, responsive, and humane state, we must begin not with administrative mechanics alone — but with a deeper social transformation.
Writer is a Pakistani researcher, writer, and socio-political analyst. He contributes regularly to Pakistan & Gulf Economist and Daily The Spokesman, and is affiliated with the Pakistan Africa Institute for Development and Research (PAIDAR) as well as the Pakistan Institute of China Studies (PICS). His work focuses on governance, development, foreign policy, and postcolonial state dynamics in the Global South.