While it is clear that almost none of the departments in Pakistan are free from corruption, some departments contain figures more corrupt than others. However, almost every department of civil service or public administration is linked with corruption and corrupt figures.
Let us suppose we have convinced the people about the rules and responsibilities of an AI-based or IT-based application submission system to protect their rights, aiming purely at eliminating corruption and the culture of bribery from our departments. In such a case, it is certain that most people associated with that department would not welcome the transition to an IT-based system because it would harm their unethical or illegal income.
Now, coming to the main concern, suppose I am serving as a high-ranked officer in a department, and a junior officer reports to me about the unethical or illegal thoughts or plans of a person or even our own department against the implementation of the IT-based system. In this case, first of all, we must ensure that there is nothing wrong with the strategy we had before. Secondly, we must confirm whether someone in our system is actively preventing the implementation of our AI or IT-based model or if it is merely an officer’s personal agenda to harm another officer or employee.
To proceed, we need to ask the junior officer for clear proof against the accused person because I believe that everyone has the right to maintain their character and charisma, and no one has the right to blame another without solid evidence. Once we gather substantial evidence, we must determine the true motive behind the accused person’s actions.
If the corrupt person’s intention is to prevent the system’s implementation because they believe it might harm the public administration system in the long run, then we should review our proposed system once again. However, if their intention is to block the system solely to protect their personal gains through bribery and corruption, then strict and straightforward action must be taken against them, considering all the evidence gathered by officers or staff members.
In such a case, I would take the junior officer’s request seriously and forward the application to the relevant authorities such as NAB or other law enforcement bodies responsible for identifying and eliminating individuals who act against national interests. If the person’s intentions are severe enough to pose a potential threat to the system’s stability, then there must be a clear and strict penalty against them.
I firmly believe that more than 50% of our bachelor’s degree holders are young, talented individuals who are currently unemployed and searching for jobs. Why not eliminate corruption from our system and allow deserving young talent to join civil services and take up these positions? Not only would this bring in fresh minds, but it would also enhance the system, as these individuals likely have a strong foundation in modern technology, including IT-based systems and AI.
Their understanding and mindset would align with the prosperity of the system, as our main goal should be to establish a transparent governance system free from bribery and corruption. If this transition succeeds, we should continue recruiting sincere and talented young individuals who understand the value of the jobs they have secured after years of unemployment.
Most probably, they would not attempt to engage in harmful activities, and if they do, there would be a proper mechanism to gather evidence against them, allowing their removal from the system. This would create further opportunities for new, deserving candidates to join and contribute to a corruption-free, progressive governance system.