The Anaesthesia of Government Reform

AT an annual puppet festival in Indonesia, former president Abdurrahman Wahid was once asked innocuously by a child how it felt to be the president of Indonesia. Semi-blind, frail and ever the intellectual, Wahid responded by saying that being president of a country is like being a marionette, because once used, it is back to the box.

This is a continuing metaphor of politics because a number of our politicians, old, young and promising, are possibly asking questions about their own utility. This question will remain without sufficient answers as it lies in philosophy, from René Descartes to the existentialism of Jean Paul Sartre.Be that as it may, the object of political engagement ought to be a permanent discussion with the public before existentialist concerns.Therefore, the political leadership ought to be concerned with how they promote and shape our definition at home and in international society.Here, one would affirm that at present, the state of the republic is under a principal cactus: that of an obvious hiatus between the politico-business leadership and society.Our leadership at both these levels seem to be caught up in the object and subject of their own existence at the expense of the public good.Political leaders, business leaders and the institutions they lead serve as important catalysts for societal change because the two are, in functionalist sociology, mutually inclusive.Leaders as actors are important in the generation of policy ideas and the institutions are the means to give practical expression to those ideas.Essentially, this is what lies at the heart of the developmental state, an idea which from time to time gains conceptual currency in the political lexicon of Prime Minister, Nahas Angula.The idea of a developmental state can be seized because it is more pragmatic than ‘a knowledge-based society’, which is by its definition post-industrial.Unless we can through Angula’s magic wand and a negation of historical determinism take a happy quantum leap into Manuel Castells’s network society.Focus is placed excessively on the Prime Minister because of the nature of the Office as an essential intersection between the political and the administrative in the process of development.On closer analysis, President Pohamba’s method is based on the application of political and administrative resources to the process of economic development and this tie in with the wider operational agenda Angula has been given compared to what has been the custom in the past.Of notable significance, is the reform agenda which includes the civil service machinery and the State-owned enterprises.Essentially this re-ordering suggests that the authority of the President exists at Cabinet level, in the directive elements of his speeches on issues such as corruption, Government efficiency, tribalism and the economy.At a different level, the authority of the Prime Minister lies in the actions that must be undertaken to address the Presidential agenda.Third, the ascendancy of Angula to the Office of the Prime Minister was seen in many circles as a positive development, given his constructivist zeal.It was the perfect opportunity for the phoenix to ultimately rise.To date, amongst other things, the Prime Minister has given scope to his work by coming up with a new mission statement which defines the cosmetic axes of the Office.Secondly, with a lot of media fanfare, an impression was created that there would be a far-reaching reshuffle of permanent secretaries and this would be a new era of public service.Again, perhaps not a fault of Angula’s making, the engaged spectator was left disappointed.Thirdly, the Prime Minister announced what were defined as far-reaching reforms to the Cabinet system since Independence.As is the case with all public reform, the objective is to increase efficiency within the Cabinet system and ultimately better policy action and delivery.In addition to these actions, the Prime Minister has delivered instructive statements which touched on vital issues such as the ‘brain drain’, civic education and in response to the rising levels of corruption spoke of a ‘crisis of trust.’ After the last Cabinet retreat, the Prime Minister declared 2006, ‘the year of implementation.’ The noble intentions of the Prime Minister are not in doubt for he is politician with an understanding of history and politics.As Prime Minister, Angula has been a bridge-builder and has been guiding parliamentary debates with tremendous lucidity.Conversely what remains problematic in Angula’s architecture is the desired outcome of reforms which are not comprehensive and a political discourse which is not followed up with concrete political and administrative action.Societies are not constructed on the basis of good intentions, but on action on those good intentions.This leads into a succinct discussion of what kind of developmental state the Prime Minister would like to see in the face of his reform initiatives and actions.In academic discourse, a developmental state is based upon the link between the idea and the structure.We can confirm that our society has not really been short of any ideology or hegemonic projects, nor has it been short on that interface with the structural.Vision 2030, regardless of its optimism, exists as a hegemonic project and has been widely accepted across sectors of society.Yet, despite various interventions, our society has not been able to deal with problems that affect service delivery.Worse, we are observing the deteriorating standards in some of our Government ministries and State-owned enterprises.What we then have in our interventions so far is (to paraphrase Antonio Gramsci), the pessimism of the diagnosis and the optimism of the prescription.Our system has been pretty optimistic in dealing with the multi-faceted nature of our ills, be it corruption, crime or numbness in the governance of the public.There has been also been a lot of optimism when it comes to the prescription.This is evidenced by the kind of reception in the setting up of the Anti-Corruption Commission and the reform of the Cabinet system which in the case of the first is supposed to arrest corruption and in the case of the latter, better policy making and implementation.In our own pessimistic diagnoses, the larger issues of competence and efficiency are overlooked since the newly created ministry or institution will deal with the problem.There is a laundry list of such anaesthetic interventions and reforms in our short administrative history.The view being asserted here is that we try to solve systemic problems by creating new institutions, new ministries, and it simply will not work as it continues to create burdens on an already inept apparatus.We see in the creation of new institutions a passport to Disneyland.In short, it becomes a standard treatment in our reform process.The jargon of reform becomes opium for the masses since they are made to believe that existing problems are getting the necessary attention.President Pohamba at the recent Swakop­mund bosberaad spoke rightly of paper policies, but then the question is: Why do we have paper policies? Are they ontologically bad and beyond implementation? The answer to such an unproblematic and complex question lies, not only in some arcane mismatch of policy and institutions, but it lies in a matter that has been in a way neglected in the diagnosis of our malaise; our competencies (our people) and how they function and interact within the system.First, we ask people to assume roles that are ex-deficione, beyond their own capacities or political will.In other words, ask people to do what they cannot do.It is pretty ambitious to appoint political leaders, senior managers or civil servants to positions for which they don’t have the requisite skills or intellectual faculties or will and expect them to deliver to the public.The business of leadership is too serious for leaders to exist on the basis of the meetings they attend or the speeches they deliver.Leadership and politics, as Dominique de Villepin on occasion puts it, is about the ability to create, to innovate and to bring positive change.In that process, the old dictum is still relevant today that great leaders are served by able and loyal servants.The Namibian leadership has been pretty consistent on loyalty as a criteria but short on what is essential in economic development: competence.Appointments are made to extend influence through someone who is supposedly loyal, at times irrespective of the competencies.Since loyalty is the only game in town, these ‘loyal cadres’ do not feed the reflection of the state or bureaucracy, but the Machiavellianism of the state.Since in its vulgar form, this loyalty takes tribal references, we continue to nurture tribalism.As such we destroy faith in the institutions which are supposed to serve that very same public and to which that public must have access.At an empirical level what does it mean to be a minister, a civil servant or chief executive in the 21st century? Namibia can only build institutional permanence once the people who drive State institutions (be they ministers or civil servants, heads of parastatals etc) have the competencies to grow and make institutions function optimally.The leadership must in that sense internalise an offensive vision towards globalisation.The State will not deliver on the social if it does not master in a Weberian sense its given monopoly on violence.The inability of the State to deliver on that mandate, invokes notion of the ‘weak state.’ Secondly, the difficulty does not lie in the nature of the structures or institutions, but how the system functions.Therefore, it is primordial to address the relationship between politicians, civil servants, State-owned enterprises and business through alternative models of work.Maybe it is time to introduce restrictions on the nature of business involvement on the part of politicians, senior civil servants, and equally so for heads of SOE’s and their senior managers.The interpenetration of these relationships between politicians, senior civil servants and private business is what ultimately paralyses the State in its endeavour to economic development.It is these perverse relationships that constitute in most instances what the French sociologist Jean François Bayart terms ‘la politique du ventre’ (politics of the belly) or a phenomenon which in Namibia is referred to as ‘greasing the palms.’ On tribalism, the state could introduce guidelines that would guard against the rise of ethnic entrepreneurs in state administration.Economic and social development as twin goals of the developmental state cannot take place under the pathologies of greed, tribalism and incompetence.The conclusion can then be drawn that our problems are not ideological, nor are they institutional.They are systemic! Therefore, any discussion or notion about reform cannot deal with one at the expense of the other unless Government reform is a sedative without substantial change.In that instance, we can then conclude prematurely that the ‘crisis of trust’ to which Prime Minister Angula referred to exist between the governing and the governed.And the only sad consolation the public can get is a missing mea culpa from a leadership constructing its own Disneyland before it returns to the box.* Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari holds a BA (Politics and Sociology) from UNAM and an MA in International Studies from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.He is currently a doctoral student in Political Science at the University of Paris-Pantheon Sorbonne, France.This question will remain without sufficient answers as it lies in philosophy, from René Descartes to the existentialism of Jean Paul Sartre.Be that as it may, the object of political engagement ought to be a permanent discussion with the public before existentialist concerns.Therefore, the political leadership ought to be concerned with how they promote and shape our definition at home and in international society.Here, one would affirm that at present, the state of the republic is under a principal cactus: that of an obvious hiatus between the politico-business leadership and society.Our leadership at both these levels seem to be caught up in the object and subject of their own existence at the expense of the public good.Political leaders, business leaders and the institutions they lead serve as important catalysts for societal change because the two are, in functionalist sociology, mutually inclusive.Leaders as actors are important in the generation of policy ideas and the institutions are the means to give practical expression to those ideas.Essentially, this is what lies at the heart of the developmental state, an idea which from time to time gains conceptual currency in the political lexicon of Prime Minister, Nahas Angula.The idea of a developmental state can be seized because it is more pragmatic than ‘a knowledge-based society’, which is by its definition post-industrial.Unless we can through Angula’s magic wand and a negation of historical determinism take a happy quantum leap into Manuel Castells’s network society. Focus is placed excessively on the Prime Minister because of the nature of the Office as an essential intersection between the political and the administrative in the process of development.On closer analysis, President Pohamba’s method is based on the application of political and administrative resources to the process of economic development and this tie in with the wider operational agenda Angula has been given compared to what has been the custom in the past.Of notable significance, is the reform agenda which includes the civil service machinery and the State-owned enterprises.Essentially this re-ordering suggests that the authority of the President exists at Cabinet level, in the directive elements of his speeches on issues such as corruption, Government efficiency, tribalism and the economy.At a different level, the authority of the Prime Minister lies in the actions that must be undertaken to address the Presidential agenda.Third, the ascendancy of Angula to the Office of the Prime Minister was seen in many circles as a positive development, given his constructivist zeal.It was the perfect opportunity for the phoenix to ultimately rise.To date, amongst other things, the Prime Minister has given scope to his work by coming up with a new mission statement which defines the cosmetic axes of the Office.Secondly, with a lot of media fanfare, an impression was created that there would be a far-reaching reshuffle of permanent secretaries and this would be a new era of public service.Again, perhaps not a fault of Angula’s making, the engaged spectator was left disappointed.Thirdly, the Prime Minister announced what were defined as far-reaching reforms to the Cabinet system since Independence.As is the case with all public reform, the objective is to increase efficiency within the Cabinet system and ultimately better policy action and delivery.In addition to these actions, the Prime Minister has delivered instructive statements which touched on vital issues such as the ‘brain drain’, civic education and in response to the rising levels of corruption spoke of a ‘crisis of trust.’ After the last Cabinet retreat, the Prime Minister declared 2006, ‘the year of implementation.’ The noble intentions of the Prime Minister are not in doubt for he is politician with an understanding of history and politics.As Prime Minister, Angula has been a bridge-builder and has been guiding parliamentary debates with tremendous lucidity.Conversely what remains problematic in Angula’s architecture is the desired outcome of reforms which are not comprehensive and a political discourse which is not followed up with concrete political and administrative action.Societies are not constructed on the basis of good intentions, but on action on those good intentions.This leads into a succinct discussion of what kind of developmental state the Prime Minister would like to see in the face of his reform initiatives and actions.In academic discourse, a developmental state is based upon the link between the idea and the structure.We can confirm that our society has not really been short of any ideology or hegemonic projects, nor has it been short on that interface with the structural.Vision 2030, regardless of its optimism, exists as a hegemonic project and has been widely accepted across sectors of society.Yet, despite various interventions, our society has not been able to deal with problems that affect service delivery.Worse, we are observing the deteriorating standards in some of our Government ministries and State-owned enterprises.What we then have in our interventions so far is (to paraphrase Antonio Gramsci), the pessimism of the diagnosis and the optimism of the prescription.Our system has been pretty optimistic in dealing with the multi-faceted nature of our ills, be it corruption, crime or numbness in the governance of the public.There has been also been a lot of optimism when it comes to the prescription.This is evidenced by the kind of reception in the setting up of the Anti-Corruption Commission and the reform of the Cabinet system which in the case of the first is supposed to arrest corruption and in the case of the latter, better policy making and implementation.In our own pessimistic diagnoses, the larger issues of competence and efficiency are overlooked since the newly created ministry or institution will deal with the problem.There is a laundry list of such anaesthetic interventions and reforms in our short administrative history.The view being asserted here is that we try to solve systemic problems by creating new institutions, new ministries, and it simply will not work as it continues to create burdens on an already inept apparatus.We see in the creation of new institutions a passport to Disneyland.In short, it becomes a standard treatment in our reform process.The jargon of reform becomes opium for the masses since they are made to believe that existing problems are getting the necessary attention.President Pohamba at the recent Swakop­mund bosberaad spoke rightly of paper policies, but then the question is: Why do we have paper policies? Are they ontologically bad and beyond implementation? The answer to such an unproblematic and complex question lies, not only in some arcane mismatch of policy and institutions, but it lies in a matter that has been in a way neglected in the diagnosis of our malaise; our competencies (our people) and how they function and interact within the system.First, we ask people to assume roles that are ex-deficione, beyond their own capacities or political will.In other words, ask people to do what they cannot do.It is pretty ambitious to appoint political leaders, senior managers or civil servants to positions for which they don’t have the requisite skills or intellectual faculties or will and expect them to deliver to the public.The business of leadership is too serious for leaders to exist on the basis of the meetings they attend or the speeches they deliver.Leadership and politics, as Dominique de Villepin on occasion puts it, is about the ability to create, to innovate and to bring positive change.In that process, the old dictum is still relevant today that great leaders are served by able and loyal servants.The Namibian leadership has been pretty consistent on loyalty as a criteria but short on what is essential in economic development: competence.Appointments are made to extend influence through someone who is supposedly loyal, at times irrespective of the competencies.Since loyalty is the only game in town, these ‘loyal cadres’ do not feed the reflection of the state or bureaucracy, but the Machiavellianism of the state.Since in its vulgar form, this loyalty takes tribal references, we continue to nurture tribalism.As such we destroy faith in the institutions which are supposed to serve that very same public and to which that public must have access.At an empirical level what does it mean to be a minister, a civil servant or chief executive in the 21st century? Namibia can only build institutional permanence once the people who drive State institutions (be they ministers or civil servants, heads of parastatals etc) have the competencies to grow and make institutions function optimally.The leadership must in that sense internalise an offensive vision towards globalisation.The State will not deliver on the social if it does not master in a Weberian sense its given monopoly on violence.The inability of the State to deliver on that mandate, invokes notion of the ‘weak state.’ Secondly, the difficulty does not lie in the nature of the structures or institutions, but how the system functions.Therefore, it is primordial to address the relationship between politicians, civil servants, State-owned enterprises and business through alternative models of work.Maybe it is time to introduce restrictions on the nature of business involvement on the part of politicians, senior civil servants, and equally so for heads of SOE’s and their senior managers.The interpenetration of these relationships between politicians, senior civil servants and private business is what ultimately paralyses the State in its endeavour to economic development.It is these perverse relationships that constitute in most instances what the French sociologist Jean François Bayart terms ‘la politique du ventre’ (politics of the belly) or a phenomenon which in Namibia is referred to as ‘greasing the palms.’ On tribalism, the state could introduce guidelines that would guard against the rise of ethnic entrepreneurs in state administration.Economic and social development as twin goals of the developmental state cannot take place under the pathologies of greed, tribalism and incompetence.The conclusion can then be drawn that our problems are not ideological, nor are they institutional.They are systemic! Therefore, any discussion or notion about reform cannot deal with one at the expense of the other unless Government reform is a sedative without substantial change.In that instance, we can then conclude prematurely that the ‘crisis of trust’ to which Prime Minister Angula referred to exist between the governing and the governed.And the only sad consolation the public can get is a missing mea culpa from a leadership constructing its own Disneyland before it returns to the box. * Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari holds a BA (Politics and Sociology) from UNAM and an MA in International Studies from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa.He is currently a doctoral student in Political Science at the University of Paris-Pantheon Sorbonne, France.

In an age of information overload, Sunrise is The Namibian’s morning briefing, delivered at 6h00 from Monday to Friday. It offers a curated rundown of the most important stories from the past 24 hours – occasionally with a light, witty touch. It’s an essential way to stay informed. Subscribe and join our newsletter community.

The Namibian uses AI tools to assist with improved quality, accuracy and efficiency, while maintaining editorial oversight and journalistic integrity.