By: Qayyum Raja
The claim that Britain came to the subcontinent with the spirit of promoting democracy or public service is not in line with historical facts. The main purpose of its arrival was to achieve economic interests and political control. The administrative structure that was established under this purpose was not designed to serve the people but to rule them. Government officials were trained not as servants but as empowered officers, whose job was not to seek cooperation from the people but to gain obedience from them.
Even after almost eight decades of independence, the effects of this colonial style of governance have not completely disappeared. Even today, the behavior of many government institutions in countries like India and Pakistan reflects that the relationship between the state and the citizen has not completely changed. Most citizens find themselves in a system where they have to face unnecessary complications, delays and formal obstacles to access their legitimate rights. I have come across some officers in Pakistan and Azad Kashmir, but they are like salt in the flour. Their own rights are also affected by integrity, in which obstruction of progress and vindictive exchanges are common tactics.
In this context, if an example of a people-friendly system is seen, the Netherlands is noteworthy. With a relatively small but effective welfare state system, this country provides a practical example of how public service is not limited to policies but is also reflected in attitudes.
The treatment of citizens in Dutch government offices reflects the idea that the state is for the people. Officials not only try to solve problems immediately, but also ask at the end of the conversation: “Heeft u nog een vraag?” i.e. “Do you have any other questions?” It is not just a phrase but a way of thinking, a way of thinking in which the comfort and convenience of the citizen are given top priority. Leaving with good manners is a natural part of this process.
This is the fundamental difference that marks the boundary between a true public service and an oppressive system. A public servant is one whose authority is used to guide, facilitate, and serve the citizen. Conversely, when authority is used without accountability and the system creates obstacles rather than solutions, it becomes a burden to the people.
It is time for societies with colonial heritage to face this fundamental question. Will state institutions still remain captive to the governance of the past, or will they move towards a system where the citizen is truly at the center? The answer lies not simply in policy reforms but in a change of thinking and attitudes—from control to service, from authority to accountability, and from tradition to reform.
٭٭٭
Share this content:
