Dear Editor,
Once again a contract non-renewal takes the spotlight. In this instance, it involves a permanent secretary at a central ministry. Twist it or turn it this is a termination or dismissal to use terms from another era. And no matter how denied or rationalized, this assumes the thick sinister silhouette, which will reveal itself in due course.
I address neither the merits nor demerits (such as they are known) of the PS’s situation. Rather, I write in broad, general strokes. Matters do not have to journey to this tedious, humiliating, sorry public state, especially if all parties are acting in good faith; unfortunately, good faith is a commodity in scarce supply locally.
It is my belief, and a standard and practice I urge upon those so affected to chart a different course. When there is a change in government, officeholders at the rarefied levels of permanent secretary and equivalent should immediately tender their resignations in writing. This would be particularly applicable to managerial and non-technical senior heads. In fact, I would go so far as to recommend that this same practice of tendering resignations occur, even when there is no change of government following a national election. This gives the political powers the right to retain or select accordingly, for whatever reason, including compatibility.
It goes without saying that mutual trust, reciprocal regard, and shared political philosophies, if not scars, are at premiums in such sensitive unfolding situations. I would not wish to have as my chief administrative officer and chief financial officer someone from the opposite political camp. Further, I would not want to be in that position (as the public servant) working for those with whom I share neither political vision nor political compact nor political history. In these instances, all are uncomfortable, and all are unwilling to participate in what is tantamount to a bureaucratic shotgun marriage. Speaking for myself, I would strive mightily to be spared, and to spare others, through my own departure.
Those who do resign should be afforded every courtesy, and every facility, inclusive of the financial arrangements, to make the exit and separation a palatable and dignified one. I would suggest that employment contracts incorporate a clause that mandates certain minimum severance conditions. I think that 3-6 months’ pay and the rest provides enough of a cushion in the event of a political force majeure. That is, change in government. Anything in excess of this I would view as ill-advised and unaffordable golden parachutes.
For their part, those who accept positions at these elevations ought to know the realities associated with such heights, even in nonpartisan circumstances. They should be familiar with all the ingredients that went into their own hiring, and what were the pivotal contributory factors. Thus why subject another group to their questionable presence, no matter how pure and objective (and competent) they might be? Separately, they should be able to locate suitable and gainful (not necessarily similar) employment, which could be a phone call away, given previous exposure and networking rings. Thus I say to one and all: why not leave with dignity intact and some level of decorum? Give the other people space to decide, to bring in their own trustees and stewards.
My last thought is, that this country being as adamantly polarized as it is, senior officials might cling to offices, and encouraged to do so, so as to compel the new chiefs to act. In this way, fingers can be readily pointed, and voices raised to add to existing clamour and apprehensions. None should have any difficulty as to the tone and content of the surrounding music.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
