EDITORIAL - The line between policy and performance
published: Thursday | February 21, 2008
As we have suggested, the Cuban light bulb affair involving Kern Spencer provides an opportunity to redefine the relationship between the professional civil/public servants and their political bosses.
We feel that it is an idea worth repeating. For all the statements from the new administration about probity and accountability notwithstanding, we fear there are dangers lurking in the wings.
Indeed, Karl Samuda, the minister with the portfolio for industry, commerce and investment, brought them clearly to public attention in a news story published by this newspaper yesterday.
We do not discount the virtue of Mr Samuda's and the Government's wish to reduce, and possibly eliminate, red tape and bureaucratic clutter, which everyone says are hindrances to investment and economic growth. Nor do we pronounce on the protocol of Mr Samuda's decision personally to assume the chairmanship of the Target Growth Competitiveness Committee (TGCC), a body that falls under Jamaica Trade and Invest, the agency promoting economic investment in the island.
The TGCC, as we understand it, identifies where the humbugs to investment exist and seek to engage various arms of Government to have them removed. It has been in existence since 2005 under a project, financed by the European Union, aimed at promoting entrepreneurship and private sector growth.
So, we accept Mr Samuda's legitimate interest, as the responsible minister and part of the Government, in having this committee perform well. We are concerned, though, about how he has framed his reason for assuming its chairmanship.
According to Mr Samuda, it was not his intention to be a minister who "sits back as just a policymaker".
"I will not be satisfied with simply just dealing with the issue of observing from a distance," he said. "I wish to be integral to the process."
This is usually a danger signal. For too often ministers cross the line from ensuring that their policies are pursued in operational involvement, which Greg Christie, the contractor general, suggests was the case with Mr Spencer.
In Mr Spencer's case, it is claimed, he breached government procurement rules and may have even been involved in a criminal conspiracy. There have been other documented cases where ministerial involvement became political vicitimisation or led to less than judicious use of public resources. We do not claim these to be Mr Samuda's intent, but he and his boss, Prime Minister Golding, should be seized of the risks.
For instance, the Private Sector Development Programme, of which Mr Samuda's competitiveness committee is a part, has among its components the financing of small enterprises. It would be a shame if someone has cause to claim that his/her project did not go forward because of ministerial interference.
The point is, there are clear lines of demarcation between ministerial and civil service responsibility. Elected politicians frame policies and drive to have them implemented.
Civil servants are responsible for operations; they bring permanence and continuity to the process of government. They are the ones accountable for the utilisation of public resources.
Unfortunately, these lines have become blurred either because of fear of the politician by the civil servant or a cosiness between the two. It is time for a reassertion of roles, about which we should be talking.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
