Errol Hewitt, Contributor
HEWITT
WE HAVE been accustomed from the 1970s to a series of public administration reforms with varying titles such as 'Administrative Reform', 'Public Sector Modernisation', etc. All, despite the different names were intended to do basically the same things but never really did.
It is reminiscent of the earlier attempt of the Adult Literacy Programme which sought to make illiterate adults literate. An islandwide crash programme utilising trained teachers and volunteers was launched, heralded by an effective marketing programme. What should have been a short-term project identifying and training such persons became permanent as no determined effort was made to correct the source of the problem, i.e., the system which generated illiteracy and which to this day exists with greater efficiency. Most attempts at modernising the public sector were without the benefit of a national strategic plan to identify the attainable goals and therefore, the institutions [ministries, departments, agencies etc.] to be established, how they are structured and staffed to accomplish these ends. Such a plan is a combination of overarching national policies and detailed plans on each of the socioeconomic sectors as prepared and owned by representatives of those sectors and taking account of wide-based research. The validity of the plan and its chances for success requires the support of both sides in the Parliament as it provides a fully thought-out pathway of the best options available to the country and a means of measuring the stewardship of the politicians. This latter may be one reason for its absence.
APPROACHES
Without such a plan, it is difficult to determine what really guided those past exercises other than the usual explanations of greater efficiency, cost effectiveness, etc. But were they? These past efforts were intended to be serious pruning exercises but ended up as 'paring' exercises because of the fear of political 'fall out' if the numbers reduced were large. Without a properly researched and agreed national plan, attempts at reforming the public administration would have been based on available facts and best assumptions and could have decided on a path which might have been
contrary to the country's best interest e.g. choosing as a focus, agriculture when the entertainment industry may be the correct path or vice versa.
But of course they never went that far, they just largely 'pared'.
The country cannot afford the present size of government as, of total revenue collected, 91 per cent is used to pay salaries and the interest on the national debt. The remaining nine per cent is transferred to the national budget and has to be combined with loans and grants to be meaningful. The country is in poverty and it is agreed that parts of the public administration are
overstaffed while others [e.g. nursing] are short staffed and the number of ministries and
agencies are too many. Given the comparatively large staff, remuneration even in the Jamaican context can never be fair or
adequate. An urgent reduction in size is crucial, together with more productive use of labour as identified in the national plan.
Any serious modernisation programme should, given its focus, structure and staffing, have full employment nationally as a priority. As regards the separated staff, government would need to recommend rehabilitative measures such as training, venture capital windows, grants, etc., to facilitate small businesses and employment opportunities.
The number of ministries is an important influence on the size of government. A determinant of this is rewarding with ministerial posts those who ardently support the election campaign, e.g., prancing on the platform. [On this basis DJs may well qualify to be ministers of government].
Such a reward system is scandalous, at a time when the quality of ministers continues to be questioned and competent leadership is vital for a society desperate for social and economic development. The new Prime Minister's response is to make three out of every four PNP Parliamentarians (75 per cent), ministers of one sort or another; as against a questionable although legal minimum of 11 ministries.
The continuing repeat of this exercise confirms that neither efficiency nor cost effectiveness were realised, resulting in the exercise becoming a permanent one in the most taxed country on earth, where dollars are scarce and the taxpayers must foot the bill regardless. In wasteful exercises like these, who stands up for the taxpayer? The Member of Parliament? If you are in a PNP constituency, there is a 75 per cent chance he/she is one of the ministers collectively shackling the citizen [43 per cent generally].
WHAT HAVE WE RECEIVED?
From these ever-revolving reform exercises, we have received an increasing number and variety of Government-owned agencies which reportedly are financially self-supporting. To satisfy the self-financing criteria of government, comparatively high fees are charged in addition to the fact that the majority of these entities are monopolies and viability is almost assured. After all, how many places can you go to get a birth certificate, a passport, register a company or obtain a land title?
In fact, it is an abysmal shame that the single document to prove one's identity and citizenship, a birth certificate, is not subsidised by Government [as it is by most countries] in order to make it fully accessible to each citizen and certainly to the poorest of the poor. Despite the income tax, GCT, agency fees, etc., Government, with its blanket tax coverage approach is just as eager to extract public payment for the maximum number of its functions, to the point where even the basic requirement of one's personal identity and proof of citizenship is not subsidised to ensure affordability by all its citizens. This is scandalous! Who represents the citizen?
Government often boasts that its agencies are highly successful, based on brandished figures proving that these mostly monopolies are financially viable. What else could they be? Yet from the
perspective of the citizen, these institutions are inefficient and underscores the magnitude of the disconnect between government and the public.
The experience of the public with these high fees but unsatisfactory services is well reported in the media, and letters to the editor provide psychological therapy. At the Lands Department for example, the processing of applications is more readily measurable in months and in some instances, even years, frustrating efforts of some to make economic use of the land. The staff of the Registrar of Companies is, in keeping with its corporate focus, elegantly 'suited' yet an in-office five-minute process takes a considerable time to access. From the public's point of view most of these entities do not readily meet their needs.
The recent unfoldings involving the Titles Department and its director indicate how poorly-supervised entities become feudalistic in their operations to the detriment of the public, even as they bring joy to government's heart by being financially self-sufficient.
Despite the obviously good intent of the Registrar General's Department, the complaints continue over a wide range of issues, dislocating families, delaying personal development programmes, etc. Good intent alone is not it.
One stated purpose behind
the creation of these statutory agencies is greater autonomy to obtain increased efficiency and cost effectiveness. Yet their very existence is in some instances surreptitiously fought against by the portfolio ministry, which, believing that one of its core function is lost, seeks to exercise control and turn the agency into a de facto department. This is so in spite of the fact that many of these agencies have their own board of directors which reports directly to the portfolio minister and includes a senior representative of the ministry. The situation is made worse when the minister instead of being in charge, 'floats on the surface' hovering between the constituency and the ministry but mainly intent on enhancing his/her popularity and by default, having the ministry's accounting officer, the Permanent Secretary, take on additionally all operations under the ministry, becoming the de facto minister.
WHAT PORTIA CAN DO
The reform exercise and the creation of these agencies are usually treated as in-house activities, utilising senior civil servants without the specific expertise, instead of using qualified personnel locally or from the Jamaican Diaspora. Absent in most is a facility for measuring performance and aims and objectives which dovetail with the national goals.
Until there is political honesty in the approach to these public sector reform exercises, the foundation for success will remain elusive.
A serious modernisation programme must realistically confront the inevitability of reduced staffing and provide serious options for those made redundant. It should also involve the reclassification and remuneration of remaining staff based on their real scope of work, qualification and experience, as well as measurable performance.
There cannot be a successful reform programme where the number of ministries is based on the number of persons to be rewarded with ministerial posts.
In the Jamaican context, a realistic reform programme should be based on an agreed bi-party supported national plan which can guide the reform design and ensure that it has purpose.
If there is no such plan because of the lack of interest or recalcitrance of our politicians, it does not mean that this can never be. The citizens must demand that government perform in their interest. It's been a long time with much suffering enough is enough.
One more thing Portia can do is to make her administration respected for good manners; instructing that like her, every minister, permanent secretary, chairman of a board, director, messenger and cleaner attendant, exercise good manners. It may reduce arrogance, instil humility, foster good relations, induce patience in the impatient, and is needed urgently. This could start a positive revolution having a multiplying effect in diverse areas. Please Portia? Thank you.
Errol Hewitt is an information and communication technology planning consultant with the United Nations and the Commonwealth Secretariat.
