Dear Editor,
With the exception of the Office of the President in which the Head of the Presidential Secretariat functioned the last administration operated 18 formal ministries, albeit there were substantive operations conducted within the Office of the President.
Comparatively, the new administration is projected to be comprised of 17 formal ministries whose management will involve up to 8 junior ministers.
It is a most debateable configuration to say the least. Those who know the concepts, and implement the principles of organisation, whether corporate or government, will hasten to point out that unless the organisation is personally owned, it is usually expected that its name indicates as clearly as possible the intended activity or programme of that organisation. In other words the naming must send a message intelligible to those with whom the organisation is expected to collaborate, locally and internationally. In the instant case too many of the agencies named invite explanation that in any case should have been immediately forthcoming, particularly where traditional descriptors have been abandoned, and to some appearances, whimsically replaced.
Needless to say also, opportunity should have been carefully taken to specify for the benefit of various publics including official counterparts, local and international, not only the programme components of the proposed new ministries but the specific role and responsibilities of each.
Certainly the permanent secretaries to be appointed should be furnished with these written charges, firstly as a basis for agreeing with their respective ministries the appropriate disposition of competencies and skills needed to deliver the required services.
What has emerged however is a clear impression that the announced configurations could not have been the result of any in-depth consultation at the relevant decision-making level. Were it so the group would have recognised the daunting implications of effectively implementing programmes and projects which one suspects have not been sufficiently well documented for study. Such contemplation had to be a necessary precursor to evaluating the potential of too wide a range of untried personnel to fit the demands of managing the respective portfolios. Proper consultation amongst the older and wiser heads of the coalition government would have provided pause on such intemperate action.
It is easily recognisable by observers that, particularly regarding those instances where new agencies are going to be instituted with total newcomers who would have to start up on their own without any previous reference, then surely those who were responsible for those configurations should have recognised the inherent vulnerabilities and therefore proceeded with the required caution.
These headstrong decision-makers would not have appeared to pay cognisance to the fact that creating organisations involves the establishment of a hierarchical structure based on the competencies required; that the competencies have to be aligned to roles and responsibilities which must be documented in job descriptions that must clearly specify what each staff member has to do. This type of documentation will be required both in the case of ministries which have to be reconfigured and moreso for the new ones to be established. One wonders how much thought has been given to the inevitable recruitment process which will be involved.
More importantly perhaps would be the apportionment of responsibilities and authority between minister and junior ministers, when so much of their respective strengths and weaknesses have not been evaluated. It would be interesting if an evaluation reveals that a junior may prove to be potentially a better performer.
But such wishful thinking could hardly be realised until after all the organisational infrastructure has been put in place. So many officers to be found and equipped (one ponders about all the new letterheads to be printed, and inter-connectivity to be installed). A clear demand would be for an experienced permanent secretary to coordinate these exercises.
Incidentally, as a matter of further interest there will be need to review the compensation packages for the various levels of portfolio-holders. It may even be necessary to compute a distinction in values between ministers – for example, between Minister of Citizenship and Minister of Finance; Minister of Tourism and Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the process there may even be reflection as to whether a Ministry of Governance can really function independent of all established parliamentary committees.
Then there is value to be placed on the position of junior minister.
One contortion that will be considered an affront to an important section of the population – workers, trades unionists, employers − is the absence of an identifiable Ministry of Labour, especially after all the campaign hype about these groupings and the consequential return to the bargaining table.
In the final analysis what has so far emerged is a reflection of confused thinking that assumes that objectives are achieved by the spontaneous combustion that power appears to provide. With the best will in the world it is hardly a welcoming prospect, not if it projects a pattern of decision-making that will continue to obtain.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
