Amid resource scarcity, and the pitiful delivery of service by certain state agencies, the government must review the relevance of some of the nation’s carbon copy institutions. It is time for the state to decommission or meld some of the nation’s idling institutions to make them leaner, meaner, and more efficient in undertaking their assigned tasks. Sometimes, I question the driving objectives behind the establishment of certain state agencies, such as the Serious Fraud Office, and the Office of Accountability, among other unessential ones whose employees enjoy remuneration, and gratuities, without ever achieving the official benchmark. While my position is not to tell the government what to do, I think that the replication of needless institutions is costing the nation a sizeable portion of its annual budget. These wasteful institutions, given the rising economic burden they place on the nation’s treasury, must be put out of business to save needless costs.
Can someone educate me on the exact role of the Serious Fraud Office; an existing, yet (an) inefficient institution, which hardly unveils any fraud at the high levels of political office? How does the nation justify the creation of the Office of Accountability, when all indications support the finding that none of our nation’s politicians in the present administration have been held criminally accountable for their many shady deals that are currently going on unchecked in the country?
If the Serious Fraud Office is responsible for investigating extensive fraud, then what is the role of the Bureau of National Investigations, and the Criminal Investigation(s) Department? The fusion of roles, the lack of role specialization and specification, and the allocation of budget to some of these institutions in the face of acute resource deprivation to other social sectors, constitute resource wastage. Without clearly defined functions between inter-state agencies, do not be surprised to be told by the Head of the Serious Fraud Office that he doesn’t deem your complaint big enough to necessitate an investigation by his office. The above case in point, supports my contention that institutional efficiency is not achieved by creating more institutions chaired by political appointees, but rather, cutting down on the bureaucratic waste, and holding officials to account.
The phenomenon of institutional proliferation is the result of our leader’s fixation with paternalistic politics, and the dubious presentation of the government as a benevolent father who possess the one-and-only right to cater to every citizen’s needs, even when it is unnecessary, and infeasible to do so. Even, at a time, when nation is cruising on steam, we hear our nation’s politicians promising more jobs.
In my personal experience, I once called a Minister only to be told that he has travelled, and that neither one of his two deputies can address my concerns until the Minister comes back from vacation. So then, if I have to defer my complaint pending the arrival of the Minister, while his two deputies are in the office, then why does the ministry need two deputy ministers in the first place? What are the job specification(s) of these two Deputy Ministers? Maybe, the inability of these two Deputy Ministers to attend to my complaint stems from their confused interpretation of their fused roles, with each thinking that the one must perform the other’s duty. I don’t blame them. Must, and Can I?
The government must wean itself from speech-based politics, and the illusionary promises of job creation, when as matter of fact, all it does is to duplicate existing ones to compound the problem. I cry form my nation. Good day cheers.
Views expressed by the author(s) do not necessarily reflect those of GhanaHomePage.
