Need To Fast-Track Policy Implementation
RECENTLY there have been debates about the way public policies are being implemented. Questions usually asked are: how can public policies be implemented faster in order to achieve operational efficiency?
Do civil servants have more power than elected officials or are these simply misconceptions and if so how can we harmonise some of the misconceived perception in order to manage public policies and programs better? ALAN and NALAO made a joint clarion call upon “all elected and appointed officials in local authorities to work together as public servants who may have different roles but are always united by a common will and purpose to serve the people of this country without fear or favour.” This call has implications for service delivery at all levels of the government. Over the last five years, the Swapo government has managed to deliver on it election promises. For example, health and education facilities were built to accommodate a growing number of people. Roads have been constructed, not only to link the different regions to each other, but also to link Namibia with neighbouring countries in such a way that goods and services are able to move quickly. Peace has been maintained throughout the country. Of course, it is cynical to suggest we have had a smooth ride.
There are challenges that must be addressed as a matter of urgency such as the failure rate in schools, among others. But such challenges can adequately be addressed if all leaders at all levels of the government work together harmoniously with the understanding that service delivery to the rural poor remains a top priority. At Regional level there are elected Regional Councillors and appointed officials whereas at National level there are elected MPs and appointed officials in Ministries/Agencies/Offices of Government. As such, it goes without saying that the working of government rests on two pillars – political and bureaucratic control. The smooth working of this system depends on the harmonious relationship between the two. Business Dictionary defines bureaucratic leadership as “a style of leadership that emphasizes procedures and historical methods regardless of their usefulness in changing environments.” In the same vain according to the Oxford dictionary, politics is defined as “the activities involved in getting and using power in public life and being able to influence decisions that affect a country or society” in the same dictionary Cabinet is defined as “a group of chosen members of government, which is responsible for advising and deciding on government policy”. The two definitions tell us that surely there is a clear cut difference between policy makers and policy implementers.
Clearly, one of the main questions of government administration is how the design of accountability structure affects policies pursued by public officials. An important difference between accountability structures is whether public officials are appointed or elected. There are strong theoretical and empirical arguments that this difference plays an important role in determining the effectiveness of public officials, and thus, the policies that they pursue. It suffices to say that elected officials need popular support to get re-elected. Appointed bureaucrats need only to please those officials that are responsible for their appointment. Put more bluntly, elected officials derive their mandate from the electorate. That mandate is obtained by presenting a coherent set of ideas about what they promise to do if they get elected. It is those ideas that will be translated into policies, which the bureaucrats will have to implement. We will return later to the question of implementation.
Our constitution says that every five years, people meeting the requirements can seek the mandate from the electorate to serve in public office by selling themselves through a thorough promise that they will implement certain policies. Among some of the policies include the eradication of poverty through the provision of health, education and access to clean potable water to all the people of Namibia. The complex of such formidable activities connected with the development enterprise is essentially government’s responsibility. Bureaucracy can immensely contribute to development by serving as policy implementers rather than adviser to elected officials. It can vitalise administration by building up a social environment emphasising responsibility by creating incentives, encouraging healthy competition and self-development, organising institutional management under competent and progressive leadership and by delegating authority to lower levels. It is true that some government programmes have not been fully implemented. There are various reasons for that. Among others, the bureaucratic arm of government which initially is supposed to serve executive through policy implementation has to some cases subordinated to itself certain powers that reside elsewhere. In some cases questions were asked as to whether some Accounting Officers (such as permanent secretaries) are ‘more powerful’ than their Ministers such that for example a minister can demand certain actions from the permanent secretary and it does not get done. Surely, this cannot be in furtherance of the Political Programme or Manifesto of Swapo?
As we stated elsewhere, the function of the bureaucracy is to implement political decisions. If bureaucrats are not comfortable to implement proposed policies, then they are free to seek the mandate of the electors – just as politicians do. Until that is the case, elected officials should dictate the strategic direction of the country and policy thinking. We hold this to be the most appropriate and democratic way of doing government business as it is done elsewhere in the world. It will avoid government programmes not being fully implemented by the bureaucracy. In other words, the implementation of government programmes cannot be left to the discretion of bureaucrats. We have many examples at the central, regional and local governments where some officials, permanent secretaries, chief regional officers and chief executive officers respectively, are keen to frustrate the political program of the country which is the only authentic contract between the government of the day and the electorate. Development has been to a certain degree paralysed by the infighting between officials at all levels. Such infighting does not benefit the people who take off their valued time to queue up and vote. The electors have delegated their powers to elected officials to act on their behalf. But if there is no harmony between the two “structures” of power, our Swapo Party manifesto may face a danger of not being fully implemented. The irony is that unelected officials have no electorate to respond to and they have no mandate to take certain decisions - usually the preserve of elected officials. We argue that bureaucracy can run amok and must be held in check by political forces if democracy is to be well served.
Namibia cannot afford contradictory ethos between the political executive and bureaucracy because it strikes at the root of a progressive administrative culture. The roles of political and administrative elite are complimentary and, in the interest of public welfare, they must work in harmony with each other. Theoretically, they play different roles. For instance, politicians make policies and administrators implement them. But, in practice, their roles often conflict and overlap because the line separating development of policy and its implementation is quite blurred. It is for that reason that we propose the following:
a) A proper understanding of the administrative functions and recognition of its professional nature;
b) As little interference as possible in operational matters, e.g. postings, transfers, promotions, etc;
c) No requests for departures from declared and approved policies to suit individual cases;
d) Ministerial accountability rests with ministers who are political heads of ministries. Therefore permanent secretaries must be accountable to them.
e) Equally as per the powers provided by the constitution, Parliament must do its job of holding Ministers responsible for lack of implementation of national programs as out lined in government policy imperatives. It does not create checks and balances to have ministers holding others responsible while they are not held responsible.
f) There must be a sincere and honest attempt to find out what the political head wants and make the necessary adjustment in policies and procedures to suit his or her wishes;
g) Readiness to fall in line with his or her political chief in all matters, unless strong grounds indicate a different course;
h) The amendment of the Public Service Act in order to actualise the above is no longer negotiable nor should it be delayed;
i) Finally, business interests of both politicians, at all levels, and their administrators – permanent secretaries down to deputy directors and heads of state-owned enterprises - must be declared publicly so that their interests do not hamper service delivery.
As we go into the regional and local authority elections later in the year, the electors should be spared the trials and tribulations that have characterised this past political season. We compliment the President of the Republic of Namibia, Hifikepunye Pohamba, for progressively and continuously reminding those in responsible offices at all levels to fast-track national development to ensuring that we have achieved economic development, and alleviate both unemployment and poverty. The people are tired of the infighting between political officials and their implementers. If people ate bickering, we are sure there would be no need for elections. But our democracy creates space for co-existence and mutual respect while still delivering on the mandate from the electors.
Dr Elijah Ngurare
Dr Audrin Mathe
Dr Tobie Aupindi