Evaluating civil servants\\\' annual performance

The country's bureaucracy is not particularly famous for high performance. Its sluggish pace is more than exposed by poor implementation, among others, of the projects under the annual development programme (ADP). Now to provide impetus to the functioning of different ministries and/or divisions, a fresh evaluation system of performance by high government officials is going to be introduced. Called Government Performance Management System (GPMS), the procedure will be applied to measure how well or badly such officials have performed throughout the year. This annual evaluation is related to the government's five-year and long-term perspective plans, assignment of duty and responsibility, allocation of business and budgetary allocation, etc. In effect, the entire exercise is part of the government's vision, mission and strategic goal in the whole gamut of administration and development works. The GPMS is going to be introduced on the recommendations made in the Public Administration Reforms Report-2000 and the National Integrity Policy-2012. To this end, 10 ministries/divisions signed the Annual Performance Agreements (APAs) last Monday. Others will follow gradually.
This certainly is a step forward for the country's bureaucracy. Prior to finalising the GPMS, a core committee formed earlier reviewed civil servants' evaluation procedures in a number of countries such as India, Malaysia, Kenya and South Africa. Clearly, preparation for activating different ministries has been quite appreciable. Now the need is to make the process functional. Actually the Cabinet Division will act as a coordinator among different ministries. So its role cannot be overemphasised. One thing is clear that the annual confidential report (ACR) also made annual assessment of a civil servant's performance but it has its limitations for reasons understandable. ACRs have become more a ritual than an objective assessment of one's practical performance. In extreme cases, though, there were chances of reflection of personal liking and disliking in the confidential report. Let it be hoped that this time the evaluation process be as open as it can be. There should be no place for personal grudge or favouritism in the evaluation of performance.
However, in this part of the world there is always a contradiction or clash of interests between party agenda versus national development or interest. Even the developed democracies are not quite free from such contradictions/clashes. For example, the famous 'Obamacare' health policy could not be introduced in the USA in the face of opposition from the Republicans and also some groups within the Democrats. In cases such as this, the civil servants cannot contribute much to the implementation of a policy. In countries like Bangladesh, developments over policy implementation can be nastier and petty indeed. It is exactly in such cases, civil servants find it difficult to advance the causes deemed suspect. About one thing, though, there is no doubt that the juggernaut called bureaucracy really needs a hard push to get over its slumber. Officials at every level needed to be more prompt and efficient in order to speed up the whole function. Let this new system of evaluation of their performance spur them on to get things done as quickly as possible and help move the engine of the central administration smoothly.