SAIFUR Rahman's hard-sell budget has been adopted by the parliament with minor modifications that leave its overall fiscal size intact. A Tk 58,000 crore challenge, to be sure. The opposition boycotted the passage rituals preceded by their generalised critique on the budget that fell short of pinning the government down on specific provisions. So, now, the directional aspect of the budget, which provoked a good deal of criticism is to be set aside for future evaluation. What is at hand now has to be dealt with, namely, the challenge of implementing the budget.

The secretaries of various ministries are supposedly mandated to play a pivotal role in utilisation of budgetary allocations and implementation of development projects. That's why, for perfectly understandable reasons, one would like to think, finance minister M Saifur Rahman has tasked the secretaries to efficiently utilise funds. The secretaries must give themselves a longer lead-time by making an early start in September rather than a delayed one in December, the finance minister pointed out. His emphasis on internal and external auditing to curb financial irregularities should merit an instant endorsement.

All this is very good; however, is the utilisation of budgetary funds or implementation of development programmes entirely reliant on secretaries? The ministers, secretaries and directors-general of the projects have their respective roles to play, not obviously at cross-purposes, but in a mutually reinforcing fashion, in ensuring implementation of projects within a specific time-frame. Projects may be of a particular ministry, but their implementation involves a whole lot of inter-ministerial clearances, given the multiplicity of stages or hurdles it has to cross. The answer lies in delegation of authority to the various tiers. Of foremost importance is the simplification of the procurement process, a justifiable concern that needs to be addressed through a high level cabinet decision. Little wonder, cluttered formalities translating into time-and cost-runs fling open doors to corruption and manipulation of all sorts that only fatten the vested interests.

Many a project needs to be doused of political considerations underlying it. In an overarching sense, depoliticisation of bureaucracy will have a positive bearing on the speed of development projects.

One hump on the road to development is the customary practice of implicating top bureaucrats in the corruption cases filed against ministers and high functionaries of an outgoing government by a government replacing it. This keeps high government officials from taking forceful initiative in developmental matters for fear of reprisal with the change of government. This particular Sword of Damocles is a purely political weapon which is now being wielded with alternating frequencies by governments to the detriment of our development pursuits. If we have a truly independent anti-corruption commission in place, it would be a powerful anti-dote to corruption in high places minus political skullduggery.