A call for Ministerial restraint

Sep 23, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The roles of Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, once neatly demarcated by the lines of constitutional and administrative propriety, have become increasingly blurred, distorted by the whims of successive governments. This encroachment upon what should be the sacrosanct independence of the civil service is not merely an affront to good governance; it is emblematic of the erosion of the very principles that separate operational function from policy direction.

Ministers have long overstepped their boundaries. They have been meddling in matters that fall squarely within the domain of administration, a territory that should be governed by Permanent Secretaries without the intrusion of political direction.

At the heart of this dysfunction lies a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a willful disregard, of the division of labor between the Minister and the Permanent Secretary. The Minister is tasked with policy—what is often referred to as the “general directions” of government departments. This general direction, however, should not be confused with micromanagement, as is all too often the case. Ministers are meant to set broad goals and leave the minutiae of execution to the Permanent Secretary, whose administrative purview encompasses the day-to-day workings of the Ministry, including human resource management, budgetary considerations, and other operational tasks.

To allow Ministers to concern themselves with such trivialities as personnel disputes or internal squabbles is to undermine the very architecture of governance. It is not simply a matter of inefficiency, but a structural fault line that renders both policy and administration weaker, less effective. When Ministers dabble in the everyday affairs of their Ministries, they divert their attention from the larger strategic issues they were appointed to address. The Permanent Secretary, meanwhile, is marginalized, rendered impotent by the encroachment of political will into what should be the objective, politically neutral space of administration.

In the idealized form of governance, the Minister and the Permanent Secretary perform their functions in tandem, each operating within their clearly defined roles. The Minister, empowered by the electorate and the broader political establishment, provides the vision, the overarching strategy and policies. The Permanent Secretary ensures that this vision and policies are implemented. But the moment a Minister feels compelled to deal with a disgruntled civil servant or to weigh in on personnel disputes, the balance of this relationship is shattered.

Consider, for instance, the delicate issue of disciplinary action within a Ministry. The mere suggestion that a Minister should be involved in any dispute between a public servant and a member of the public, or even between two employees, is not only a breach of established protocol but a clear violation of the apolitical nature of civil service. In such matters, the Permanent Secretary is the authority, empowered by the civil service code and administrative law to manage disputes, oversee disciplinary actions, and maintain internal harmony. The Minister’s involvement would be akin to a CEO attending to squabbles between office clerks—undignified, unnecessary, and ultimately damaging to the governance structure.

The Minister, to be clear, is not without recourse in matters of importance. Should a policy issue require attention, the Minister can call upon senior public officials, requesting a briefing or a report on matters directly related to policy implementation. This is both within their right and essential to maintaining accountability. But even in such instances, the Permanent Secretary should be present, ensuring that the boundary between policy oversight and operational execution remains intact. Ministers should never, under any circumstances, involve themselves in the private disputes – such as those between government employees and members of the public.

Has there ever been a concerted effort to educate and orient Ministers about their specific role within Ministries, especially in relation to the responsibilities of the Permanent Secretary? Given the persistent overreach of Ministers into administrative matters, it is worth questioning whether formal programs or initiatives have been established to clarify the boundaries between policy direction and day-to-day operations. Such orientation could help curb the recurring issue of Ministers encroaching upon the operational domain, which rightly belongs to Permanent Secretaries, and ensure that both parties can work within their respective spheres to improve governance.

The creeping overreach by Ministers has been allowed to fester because of a broader malaise within the civil service, particularly in post-colonial states. The civil service, once an institution prized for its independence and impartiality, has been gradually converted into an extension of political power, more concerned with appeasing political masters than with upholding the principles of neutrality and efficiency. The bureaucratic machinery has been politicized, and in this context, it is unsurprising that Ministers feel emboldened to step into administrative affairs that should be beneath their notice.

Successive governments have taken advantage of this weakened civil service, arrogating to themselves an increasingly intrusive role in administrative matters. Where Permanent Secretaries once wielded considerable authority over the inner workings of Ministries, many of them have seen their powers  been steadily diminished, reduced to little more than errand-boys or girls for politically appointed Ministers. This subjugation of the civil service is not merely an affront to administrative law; it represents a profound failure of governance.

The origins of this political intrusion can be traced to a fundamental lack of respect for the autonomy of the civil service. Politicians, distrustful of the technocratic elite, have sought to bring the civil service to heel, transforming it into a political arm of the government rather than a separate and independent entity. In this model, the Permanent Secretary becomes a functionary, beholden to the Minister’s whims rather than to the principles of good governance. The inevitable result is a civil service that is no longer capable of providing the objective, non-partisan advice that is crucial for effective policy-making.

The remedy for this state of affairs is neither complex nor novel; it requires only a reassertion of the roles and responsibilities that were once so clearly defined. Ministers must be reminded of their purpose: to provide political leadership and policy direction, not to meddle in the daily operations of their Ministries or in disputes between government workers and members of the public. Ministers should be focused on the big picture, leaving the Permanent Secretaries to handle the administrative complexities that allow Ministries to function smoothly.

Governance is at its most effective when policy and administration operate in harmony, each respecting the other’s domain. The Minister provides the vision; the Permanent Secretary ensures its execution. When these roles are respected, government operates smoothly, efficiently, and in the best interests of the public. When they are not, the result is dysfunction, inefficiency, and, ultimately, confusion, and injustice.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)         

---

• Ministerial restraint, Peeping Tom, Permanent Secretaries

---