One of the difficulties with the term ‘the Public Service of Guyana’ reposes in the fact that its popular interpretation is misleading in its narrowness insofar as it largely limits the institution to the traditional Ministries of Government administered at the top by functionaries titled Permanent Secretaries and (for no clearly defined reason arbitrarily excludes other state-run institutions which, in much the same manner as the aforementioned Ministries of Government, administer the affairs of the state and provide services to the people of Guyana as an agent of the state.
So that, for example, whilst institutions like the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) and the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) can lay perfectly legitimate claim to being Public Service institutions they are not so officially categorized. There is no good reason why this should not change even though one can already hear the clamour from the Guyana Public Service Union for salary adjustments so that the traditional Public Service can catch up to the ‘new’ entrants thereto.
Presumably, salary differentiations are intended to illustrate the differences in level of responsibility, those differences having to do with carrying out revenue-collection and disbursements on behalf of government as are the cases of the GRA and NIS respectfully.
On the whole and historically, the Public Service (and one includes institutions like the NIS and the GRA) has been the target of robust public criticism that has mostly targeted service institutions like the health, education and social services sectors. These are commonly cited by their critics for shortcomings that include sloth, incompetence, a poor public image and frequently, downright incompetence.
One of the characteristics that redound to the disadvantage of the Public Service insofar as service delivery is concerned is that save and except in sectors like health – where health care professionals doctors, nurses et al) require highly specialized training – low level entry into the Public Service as a whole is based on what one might call basic academic qualifications, the best-known one being the CXC Examination. Histori-cally, the entry rationale appeared to be driven by the assumption that five subjects at the CXC examination (and before that the GCE examination) was a more than adequate qualification to enter the Public Service. Placement upon entry, thereafter, appeared to be attended by a healthy degree of arbitrariness that paid little if any attention to aptitudes and preferences.
That formula has never really worked. In fact it went all wrong. First, there was little entry level training to speak of so that (and here we speak about the last four decades or so) the new Public Servant was hardly afforded the opportunity to understand what it meant to be a servant of the public, so to speak. Indeed, what we have seen over the years are persistent complaints about the manner in which the public is engaged and what is felt to be the profound absence of urgency associated with expediting the affairs of the public. One of the arguments that have been articulated for what is felt to be – in many instances – a below par performance by some Ministries is what, historically has been regarded as the low level of remuneration compared with other (non – Public Service) state agencies and the private sector.
There has also been reason to question the manner in which the Public Service has been led for many years, its critics pointing, for example, to the popularization of so-called super-salaried Permanent Secretaries, who are the de facto CEO’s of Government Ministries. Having been essentially fast-tracked, their critics say those special contract, ‘super-salaried Permanent Secretaries have been denied the opportunity to ‘learn the ropes’ in the same manner that their predecessors who climbed the ladder of elevation rung by rung, did. One can well recall a time – in the 1970’s and 80’s when Permanent Secretaries were treated as highly respected professionals in every manner save and except their emoluments. In those days of much lower cost of living, however, it was the recognition, in large measure that counted. The Permanent Secretary was a respected (even feared in some instances) highly skilled, confident and competent functionary who served not only as taskmasters but as trainers and whose skills and experience ensured in most instances that insofar as their respective Ministries were concerned they ran ‘a tight ship’ so to speak. Many of those Permanent Secretaries may have possessed, at best, a First Degree from a University. Their strength lay in the fact that they had made their way through the ranks at a pace that allowed them to learn as they went along, eventually emerging not only as skilled professionals but also as excellent trainers and role models for those who served under them.
The establishment of the Bertram Collins College of the Public Service and its launch in November 2016 marked the first significant step in the direction of real Public Service reform (there had been much ‘gaff’ prior to then about public service reform) though there is clearly a great deal more work to be done to improve the quality of service delivery in the Public Service.
If performance-related weaknesses can be addressed through an orthodox curriculum designed to develop and/or sharpen specific competencies, the bigger challenge (and this assessment is based on the nature of the criticisms that have been made of the Public Service) has to do with inculcating the sense of mission that being a Public Servant implies. In effect, if we are to have an enhanced quality of Public Service the training regime must speak to the disciplines of commitment and high ideals.
Enhanced levels of performance can also be realized in circumstances where aspects of training target specialized disciplines. If this is not already the case, particular attention should be paid to subject areas that target students at the College based on the Ministries/state agencies where they are employed. Nor is there any good reason, as far as one can tell, why employees at those state agencies that have not been traditionally classified as part of the Public Service cannot benefit from training there.
Within the administrative leadership at state agencies including Ministries and other Departments of Government, there is evidence too that Permanent Secretaries are themselves in need of specialized training. Frankly, one is unsure as to whether contemporary Permanent Secretaries are, in many instances, as thoroughly briefed on the myriad regulations relating to the various aspects of the Public Service as were their predecessors. There are, as well, instances in which language limitations (sometimes serious ones) in circulars and memoranda rob them of their desired effect, a circumstance that can have serious consequences. It is highly desirable that Permanent Secretaries possess excellent language skills.
While much is being made about the role of the private sector, going forward, given what we perceive to be Guyana’s development trajectory, the available evidence suggests that an expanded private sector will have direct and significant implications for the role of the Public Service. This applies, it would seem, particularly in the services sector including the health service, the social services, state revenue collection and administration and education, among others. Expanded, more weighty responsibilities will not only be attended by the materialization of new and in many instances more complex laws and regulations that will have to be interpreted and implemented but greater overarching administrative responsibilities in specialized sectors (oil and gas will obviously be one of those) that will necessitate significantly higher levels of Public Service-related skills and knowledge than obtains at this time. While one is by no means assuming that this is not the case, it does not hurt to make the point that the Bertram Collins College of the Public Service would do well to fashion a vision for education and training that takes full account of these realities.
