.... but leaving checks and balances bare
Many are those who will testify in their experiences with, and working in the Ghana public sector that just meritocracy as announced for the placement of a few top management (senior and middle level personnel) through training, testing, self-placement in the public sector agencies will not be enough to tackle the weakening public sector services in Ghana.
Having, also worked in the public sector during the the mid-80s in a regional establishment and further as a top management personnel at the district level in the early 1990s, I could forsee the crippling deterioration that has beset the public sector today.
This paper seeks to suggest a further look into the real facts and deliberate loopholes that have made checks and balances in the public sector irrelevant or nonexistent. I intend to give examples that need to be worked at, for better performance and improvement of the public sector.
Finally, there is a suggestion on what need to be done to make the public services more efficient and effective; these include accountability, timeliness, vivid information, fairness, honesty, responsibility and forthrightness rather than elusiveness among other tricks by public workers and politicians.
What therefore, is meritocracy? Meritocracy is believed to be: "A social system in which rewards and occupational positions are allocated justly on the basis of merit, rather than ascriptive factors such as class, gender, ethnic group or wealth." (Lawson et al)
The myth about meritocracy though have become increasingly evident that, "it is affording privileges to the advantaged and putting further obstacles in the path of those disadvantaged.(Bilton et al and Rowman & Littlefield, 2004)." Also there are similar lessons to be learnt from Lani Guinier's (Harvard Law Professor) latest book, Meritocracy Inc., to be released in 2007.
In any public sector delivery system; which is aimed at bridging the gap of service delivery in every possible way, by making services accessible and available to all at fair rates and at the right time in order to achieve the goal of total national development.
We should beware not to create a dual system which will defeat the whole purpose of reform in the country's public sector. For the very simple reason that the country has not made any genuine attempt at meritocratic governance except for the incessant noise making over good governance.
Whereas, meritocracy is thus understood to be a system of government based on rule by ability (merit) rather than by wealth or social position.
When questions were raised in the 2004 vetting about the competence, sometimes credibility or otherwise of certain ministers (Hon Anane, Asmah, Edumadze, Ekumfi, Quaye, etc.,) of state as we are all aware; they were not adequately investigated.
Even where there were doubts, these persons received parliamentary support and presidential approval (or assent) and sworn to remain in/or to take office.
It will therefore be self defeating and wasted effort to let such ministers who automatically fall into the position of top management in the public services to do a better job with the so-called "new breed of refined managers" thought of in the reform process underway without any contradictions.
Since more often than not, ministers on the whole wield more power than public sector executives. Therefore the public sector reform ministry will have to find ways of bridging the public sector/government interphase, in a manner that the same rules apply to government officials as well as public sector officers.
Whereas, to be meritocratic can also sometimes be used "to describe a government, or other body, that stresses formal education and competence despite other features (e.g. ancestry, connections, political affiliation, gender, etc)."
Accountability: Is at its lowest ebb in most public sector institutions throughout the country, be it morals or actuals; in the case of receipts for instance when many institutions (CEPS, Lands Department, Police, revenue agencies generally etc., just to mention a few) have become so competent (or experts) in issuing receipts from about 50 percent to over 100 percent short (or less) of what clients actually do pay for the services rendered and no one can complain.
What will the public sector make of the case where clients pay in certain instances a hundred and fifty thousand cedis, for very essential services in a total belief that it is the fee but are issued with a receipt of only a hundred thousand cedis by a public service?
It brings into question how difficult this problem could be raised with say the SFO and CHRAJ when the extra charge to some means a mere fifty thousand to sometimes six hundred thousand cedis.
When it is clear that an investigation into such a matter will cost much more, will be time consuming to make everyone ignore it. Whereas, considering the number of clients affected in a day, weeks to months could tell you that, the public services have become private revenue generation establishments for a privileged few.
In other instances you are made to pay one million cedis at say the Lands Department and you are issued with just a receipt of four hundred thousand cedis. All these have gone a long way to make the public sector ineffective.
Considering the fact that a public service officer makes between 50 to 150 percent more money than what is due government. There is also the need for a national clearinghouse for public sector receipts to avoid fakes and avert fraud.
Timeliness: When the people want to know something by way of services it has to be delivered in the right space of time. This is evident in the adjudication of cases in the public courts, which has caused undue delays in the delivery of justice.
There is a typical case of Hon Captain(rtd) Effah Dartey who is to, as a matter of duty inform the Ghanaian public long ago and many times over about their interest in a case. In an instance of the whereabouts of three known women drug dealers of the New Patriotic Party arressted at the Kotoka International Airport.
Vivid information: There is virtually lack of all manner of clear information on procedures, fees and fines in all public institutions in the country, to the extent that sometimes one (the client) is at the mercy of the officers discretionary imposition of the latter without any fear.
Fairness: When public sector workers lord it over clients in such a manner to such an extent the it becomes a clear sign of "bullying." There are attitudes like "I do not like you, so I will not attend to you. You have not listened to me (subjectively), so I will delay the delivery of service to you."
Hence, for your punishment (arbitrariness), you will have to go and come until I am satisfied and nothing could be done to against such public sector worker to protect the client.
Honesty: Could a very thorny issue in making a case for meritocracy in the public services. In the Ghanaian situation for instance how would a case of a high ranking official coming to work drunk be tackled by staff and clients.
The other gap is the question of how come very meritorious individuals become most scandalous, although recent reports were in the corporate America in the case of the Harvard graduate, Jeffrey Schilling (or Skilling) at Enron.
There is every possibility that however highly placed a personnel is, will not necessarily be shielded from fraud. Therefore, it could occur with the new kind public sector personnel recruited by test and placement methodology (or formula) being anticipated in Ghana.
Unless other things by way of checks and balances are critically looked into. Which if not well formulated will only mean a licence to be above everybody (an untouchable) and the tendency of making one feel to be above the law.
Another compelling confusion between honesty and meritocracy occurred also in the cases of "WorldCom, Arthur Andersen, Adelphia, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Duke Energy, Global Crossing, Xerox as well as recent allegations of misconduct in the vast mutual funds industry reveal how corporate executives often enrich themselves through less than honest means."
Responsibility: This should be seen as applicable to all public sector agencies where, someone should always be responsible for wrongdoing in an establishment.
More often than not they should be those in top managerial positions, ministers and their deputies, chief executives, principal civil servants, chief inspectors, directors who invariably do not, should be answerable to the public or/and be prepared to resign honourably, quit or step down to be investigated at all times.
The Amagasaki rail crash in April, 2005 saw the resignation of Takeshi Kakiuchi as president of JR West in Japan, although it was clear that the accident was caused by driver error (speeding).
The president of the main opposition Democratic Party of Japan, Seiji Maehara decided to resign on April 1, 2006 by saying "I bear the heaviest political responsibility," when he made a political decision on an email fiasco.
In Japan for example top managers show their responsibility and remorse not for their own wrongdoing but also by those of their subordinates in the institutions they head and do go to the extreme of committing suicide.
A 38 years old executive, Hideaki Noguchi a vice president of H S Securities Co, linked to Livedoor stock scandal was found dead in his hotel room Janauary 19, in an apparent suicide and this was confirmed by the Police in Okinawa, Japan.
Japan has some of the highest rates of suicide in the world and "Japanese people of today still perceive suicide as an acceptable means to avoid bringing shame or dishonor upon their family."
It is sad though, but that is to what extent some top officials can go in certain cultures if they do not perform. Luckily, in Ghana we do value life, the culture and society as a whole does not permit it.
Last, but not the least is "forthrightness," rather than evasiveness or elusiveness of the political players: In a recent report, "Prez. Spokesman disappoints reporters" and "Journalists unhappy with Presidential press secretary" (Ghanaweb/myjoyonline: Friday, 31 March 2006) in which journalists became unhappy with latest developments at the bi-weekly meeting, addressed by Kwabena Agyepong.
The journalists accused him of treating them with scorn, their questions with contempt, and was elusive all these could be a pointer for concern in public sector delivery which need to be addressed by the reform effort.
Finally, as we forge ahead with public sector reforms, we should be conscious that, the underlying fact of the Michael Young's 1958 "invention" of the word (meritocracy) in the UK, was an attempt at a prophetic satire which has continuously haunted all societies till today; through its intepretation, and may not be the absolute way forward for a truely public sector reform process in Ghana.
Self-placement (if I did understand well what was announced by the minister,) of trainees through testing is counter productive and will create an under-class of executives in other sectors (perceived none lucrative) and will be extremely discriminatory.
A situation that will not necessarily meet the national development goals. It will rather make it difficult for persons to be transferred to where they are needed most and also impede secondment, or make it impossible.
There should always be a further training and even retraining of the needed manpower as and when it is required and placement be guided by competence and leadership but not mere wishes based on just test results.
Copyright © 1994 - 2024 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
