|| Md. Mukhlesur Rahman: Islamic Finance Specialist, Economist, Social and Political Thinker, Geopolitical Analyst, and Human Rights ActivistFor years, citizens have voiced a persistent grievance about Bangladesh’s administrative system: when seeking services from government offices, they often encounter treatment that makes them feel less like citizens of the state and more like supplicants seeking favours from powerful authorities. Whether they need a certificate, approval for a lawful activity, land mutation, tax-related services, a licence, or some other routine administrative service, people may face unnecessary harassment, prolonged delays, repeated visits to different offices, and distressing uncertainty. Many service seekers also allege that, in some cases, personal connections, political influence, and money matter more than established rules and procedures.It must be acknowledged, however, that not all government officials and employees in Bangladesh behave this way. Many serve citizens with integrity, competence, and professionalism, and their contributions deserve recognition. Nevertheless, allegations of authoritarian conduct towards citizens, inadequate accountability, and reluctance to provide services in certain offices cannot be ignored. When public confidence in the administration erodes, the overall effectiveness of the state is weakened.A strong and increasingly widespread question has emerged in the minds of ordinary people: Are Bangladesh’s bureaucrats truly civil servants, entrusted with serving the public, or have they become rulers of citizens who are expected to obey their instructions?The term civil servant itself reflects a fundamental responsibility. Civil servants are employees of the state, whose operations are financed by public money. They are entrusted with implementing government policies lawfully and ensuring the delivery of public services. Their authority is not their personal property; it is a responsibility delegated to them by the state. The purpose of exercising that authority is not to control citizens for its own sake, but to protect their rights and safeguard the public interest in accordance with the law.When an official views a position not as a responsibility to serve the public but as a means of displaying personal status, influence, or authority, such conduct is not merely unethical; it may also violate applicable public service rules. Treating citizens’ questions as an annoyance, looking down on ordinary applicants, withholding information about the progress of applications, or causing unreasonable delays in fulfilling statutory responsibilities are all fundamentally incompatible with the ethos of public service.A government official is responsible for enforcing the law and may, where appropriate, reject a citizen’s application. However, such a decision must have a legal basis. The reasons should be explained, and the applicant must be informed of the applicable avenues of appeal or other remedies.To understand the crisis of bureaucracy in Bangladesh, it is also necessary to consider the historical legacy of its administrative structure. During colonial rule in the subcontinent, a principal purpose of administration was to establish the authority of the rulers, collect revenue, and control the governed population. In an independent state, however, the philosophy of administration must be fundamentally different. Its purpose should be to promote public welfare, protect citizens’ rights, and ensure development.Changing the national flag does not automatically transform administrative culture. Excessive emphasis on rank and status, maintaining distance from ordinary people, placing bureaucratic procedures above citizens’ convenience, and treating official decisions as beyond question are among the tendencies that reflect the continuing influence of colonial administrative attitudes.More than five decades after independence, if an ordinary citizen still feels helpless upon entering a government office, the problem cannot be attributed solely to the behaviour of an individual official. It also raises serious questions about administrative culture and institutional accountability.Nevertheless, colonial inheritance should not be treated as the sole explanation for every problem. Political interference, weak oversight, complicated laws and regulations, inefficient procedures, conflicts of interest, and the absence of effective action against misconduct can also perpetuate these difficulties.Bureaucracy is indispensable to the functioning of the state. Elected governments formulate policies, while the administration implements them in accordance with laws and regulations. Administrative experience, institutional memory, professional competence, and impartiality provide continuity to the state. However, when this important position is exercised without adequate accountability, administrative power can become a source of hardship for citizens.When the list of required documents for a service is unclear, the processing deadline is unknown, the responsible official cannot be identified, or the reasons for rejecting an application are not provided in writing, citizens find it extremely difficult to assert their rights. In some cases, doing so may become virtually impossible.Administrative delays also carry an economic cost. If a small entrepreneur must repeatedly visit government offices to obtain business approval, both time and money are wasted. If a farmer is harassed over land documents, agricultural production and livelihoods may suffer. When sick people or elderly citizens are required to make repeated visits to government offices for routine services, their physical and mental distress increases. Uncertainty surrounding business approvals and public procurement can also undermine the investment climate.Administrative inefficiency, therefore, is not merely a source of public frustration. It is closely connected with economic productivity, social justice, and public confidence in the state.In 2025, the World Bank announced the approval of a $250 million project aimed at strengthening transparency, accountability, and institutional effectiveness in Bangladesh’s public institutions. The initiative places emphasis on improving institutional capacity and digital systems in important areas, including statistics, revenue administration, public procurement, planning, and auditing. Improving public service delivery and strengthening public trust are also among its broader objectives. This demonstrates that administrative capacity and accountability have become important considerations in Bangladesh’s development agenda.Whenever allegations of irregularities arise in the delivery of public services, they must be investigated impartially. In particular, allegations that officials demand unofficial payments to complete lawful tasks, pressure applicants to use intermediaries, make services dependent on recommendations from influential individuals, or grant benefits outside established rules can seriously undermine public confidence in the administration.At the same time, an allegation alone does not establish guilt. Responsibility must be determined through evidence, investigation, and due legal process. Nevertheless, the authorities also have a duty to initiate appropriate inquiries when the nature and seriousness of a complaint warrant investigation.A particularly troubling situation arises when citizens receive no remedy after submitting complaints, cannot obtain updates on their progress, or fear harassment for speaking out. Under such circumstances, people gradually lose the motivation to report irregularities. This, in turn, creates greater opportunities for misconduct to continue.Public services are not personal favours. When citizens are legally entitled to a service, it must be provided in accordance with the applicable rules. Demanding additional benefits in exchange for delivering a service is not merely unethical; depending on the circumstances, it may also constitute a criminal offence.It is important to recognise that corruption is not confined to bribery. Nepotism, abuse of authority, improper use of public resources, conflicts of interest, and unjustified preferential treatment can also undermine administrative integrity and impartiality.Another significant aspect of Bangladesh’s administrative crisis is political interference. Public officials are expected to implement the lawful policies of an elected government. That is a normal and necessary function of public administration. However, if professional decisions are influenced more by party loyalty, personal relationships, or the desire to satisfy centres of political power than by law and the public interest, administrative impartiality becomes questionable.When political influence enables some people to obtain special privileges, other citizens are disadvantaged. If officials consider pleasing those in power to be the principal measure of success, they may relegate their responsibilities towards ordinary citizens to a secondary position. Conversely, treating officials as guilty or unsuitable solely because of their perceived political affiliations after a change of government is also harmful to a professional civil service.The administration must therefore operate within the constitutional and legal limits of political direction while also ensuring that officials possess the professional integrity, courage, and institutional protection necessary to refuse unlawful instructions.Civil servants need job security so that they can resist illegal pressure without fear of arbitrary retaliation. However, such protection must never become a shield against accountability. Fair employment protection and responsibility for misconduct must be ensured together.In a democratic state, no government official stands above citizens’ legitimate questions. Naturally, administrative confidentiality, the protection of personal information, and legal restrictions must be respected. However, these limitations cannot be used as excuses to deny citizens necessary information or to cultivate a culture in which government decisions need not be explained.Citizens have the right to ask why their applications are being delayed, which legal provision prevents a particular action, which official is responsible, how long the decision-making process should take, and where they can seek redress if an application is rejected. Such questions do not constitute disrespect towards the administration; they are a normal part of good governance.Respectful treatment of citizens must be ensured in every government office. A farmer, labourer, rickshaw puller, small business owner, student, or financially disadvantaged person should not face discrimination because of clothing, economic circumstances, social background, or political connections. The principle that all citizens deserve equal dignity before the state should form the foundation of public service.An official’s rank does not diminish a citizen’s dignity. Rather, the principle that greater authority entails greater responsibility must be established at every level of the administration.Introducing digital systems into public services is undoubtedly a positive step. Online applications, digital records, electronic payments, application tracking, and automated deadline monitoring can reduce unnecessary visits and direct interactions. However, technology alone cannot resolve every problem.If citizens must still visit multiple offices after submitting online applications, if digital procedures create further uncertainty, or if discretionary decision-making remains concentrated in the hands of a few officials without adequate oversight, the benefits of technology may be limited. In some circumstances, it may even become another source of inconvenience.Alongside digital services, citizen charters must be made effective in every government office. Information about the documents required for each service, official fees, processing deadlines, responsible officials, and complaint mechanisms should be displayed prominently in offices and published online in clear, accessible language.If an application cannot be processed within the prescribed period, the reasons should be communicated in writing. There must also be a mechanism for identifying the causes of pending applications and determining responsibility. At the same time, direct assistance must be available to people who lack access to online systems. Digital transformation must not create a new form of inequality.To make Bangladesh’s bureaucracy genuinely citizen-friendly, institutional reforms are needed rather than reliance on individual goodwill. Several measures are particularly important.First, the quality of public service must be measured. The number of files an official processes cannot be the sole measure of performance. The quality of decisions, punctuality, compliance with the law, resolution of citizens’ complaints, and the experiences of service users should also be included in performance evaluations.Second, an effective and independent complaint-resolution mechanism must be established. Every complaint should receive a reference number, a defined resolution deadline, and a means of tracking its progress. Complaints must be investigated impartially and without undue influence. Appropriate safeguards must also protect complainants from retaliatory harassment.Third, administrative decision-making must become more transparent. When an application is rejected, the applicant should receive a written explanation identifying the relevant laws and regulations. Transparency and auditing should be strengthened in public procurement, project implementation, approvals, and asset management wherever the law permits the disclosure of information.Fourth, misconduct and abuse of authority must be addressed impartially. Complaints should be investigated without discrimination based on rank, political affiliation, or personal influence. However, disciplinary action must also follow due process, including a proper investigation and a fair opportunity for the person concerned to defend themselves.Fifth, merit and professional competence must receive greater weight in recruitment, posting, and promotion. Training, skills development, integrity, a commitment to public service, and demonstrated performance should be central to professional evaluation. Institutional safeguards must also be developed to protect officials from unreasonable political or personal pressure.Sixth, citizen participation should be expanded. Regular public opinion surveys on service quality, public hearings, consultation with service users at the local level, and publication of aggregate complaint statistics can help identify shortcomings. Department-specific improvement plans should then be developed based on the findings.Seventh, administrative procedures must be simplified. Citizens should not be unnecessarily required to obtain information from one government department when that information is already available within another. Unnecessary approvals, repeated demands for the same documents, and conflicting regulations should be reviewed and reduced.Eighth, honest officials must be protected and recognised. Reform does not mean treating every official with suspicion. Those who serve with integrity, resist improper pressure, and ensure that citizens receive their entitlements deserve professional independence, security, and appropriate recognition. At the same time, effective accountability must be maintained when misconduct is established through due process.Reforming the bureaucracy is not simply a matter of amending a few laws or introducing new technology. It also requires changes in administrative attitudes, leadership, training, and the way officials perceive their relationship with citizens.When an official assumes office, they should remember that the position is not an instrument for displaying personal power. It is a responsibility founded on public trust. Respecting citizens in offices financed by taxpayers’ money is not an act of courtesy or personal generosity; it is a minimum requirement of public service.Citizens, too, must follow lawful procedures, provide accurate information, and refrain from exerting unlawful pressure on officials. Building a citizen-friendly administration is not an entirely one-sided responsibility. Nevertheless, those entrusted with public authority naturally bear greater responsibilities and must be subject to greater accountability.The most fundamental question in the debate over Bangladesh’s bureaucracy is this: Will the state administration provide services to citizens, or must citizens seek the administration’s favour to obtain them?The state exists to protect people’s rights and promote their welfare. The administration is one of the principal instruments through which these responsibilities are fulfilled. Therefore, the success of public administration should not be measured by the power, influence, or official grandeur of its officers. It should be measured by how easily, affordably, quickly, and respectfully ordinary people receive public services.An administration that respects citizens earns their trust. An administration that acknowledges its mistakes, provides remedies for grievances, and operates in accordance with the law strengthens the foundations of an effective state. By contrast, an administration that belittles citizens, treats questions as acts of disobedience, and places its authority beyond accountability ultimately undermines its own legitimacy and public confidence.It may not be reasonable to conclude categorically that all officials in Bangladesh’s administration have become rulers of the people. However, if citizens repeatedly have to seek the favour of powerful individuals to obtain routine government services, the state has a fundamental responsibility to investigate the causes of such hardship and introduce the necessary citizen-friendly measures.Will Bangladesh’s bureaucrats continue to be identified primarily by their rank and authority, or will they genuinely become civil servants dedicated to serving the people? This question must be answered not through speeches, but through administrative conduct and institutional reform.The fundamental responsibility of public administration is not to rule over the people, but to serve them in accordance with the law. Until this principle is established in practice, the demand for bureaucratic reform will remain unresolved.