SINCE independence our government had taken many ‘reform’ steps, underpinned by a variety of rhetoric.
‘De-colonization’ and ‘Localization’, to shake off colonial hang-ups; ‘De-centralization’, to bring governance and economic productivity closer to our rural people – highlighted by other myths and rhetoric of provincial government, economic diversification and the bottom-up approach; and the aid-driven ‘Capacity Strengthening’, to gather equipment, techniques and personnel to ascertain effective service production – highlighted by ‘Transparency’ and ‘Accountability’.
More recently we are on ‘Rehabilitation’ and ‘Reconstruction’, to ensure RAMSI ‘rebuilds; our ‘failed state’ system and stamp out corruption.
Over the years we use these rhetoric and related issues so interchangeably.
We merge government action programs under one set of reform rhetoric with existing ones under another.
We crisscross the applications of related underpinnings and actions in public deliberations and government work.
By now we must certainly be confused about what exactly we mean with each rhetoric use and the precise purposes we work toward.
The sentiments underpinning these reforms impact on specific political and economic visions for our society.
And each new government comes in all the time with a few of them.
But the bottom-line is that government work, however they are put together or spread out, is administered by the Public Service.
This is where we always hit brick wall – of inappropriate structures (never mind capacity needs), cronyism and wantok system, entrenched networks and corrupt practices (including certain aspects of the aid community), and the public and private sectors dichotomy.
These are highly sensitive details to address within our public superstructure already, while experiencing over-bearing influences of international organisations and their imperatives and foreign policies of our development partners.
It is no accident that commentaries on government performance and development trajectories have simply been praises for or criticisms of individual politicians and public officers.
It is no accident that public offices are literally carried out and juggled by individuals and not performing as units.
It is no accident therefore that criticism on government performance continues to be taken personally by politicians and public officers – and always with societal ripples that suck in reactions from wantoks.
It is not surprise that our public offices are filled with notices and so much memoranda that litter office walls about what to do and not do in offices and over duties, appealing to and being critical of individual sensibilities.
Our public service was never built to carry a society as an independent political economy – particularly through global dynamics of the last three decades and especially through developmental needs and dynamics of a post-colonial society of entrenched cultural groupings. Our public service was simply set up to develop natives with potentials who are then ‘civilized’ through their duties in order to related with colonials bent on the civilizing and modernizing burden.
We managed to squeeze out some quality leaders and elders from this background. Nevertheless, this does not take away the colonial underpinning to the details of the structure we inherited. And it is with this archaic structure that we arm ourselves with to face the world of the twenty-first century.
In accordance with this colonial backdrop, our public service was set up as a career institution, the largest employer in the whole country. And we have latched on to this career underpinning with our own dynamics of wantok system and networks and stretching the powers and privileges within to corruption practices.
This career underpinning is so entrenched that government restructuring efforts to date have only been limited to re-shuffling personnel, re-naming offices, and adjusting pay levels. No restructuring to date has ever meaningfully addressed direct relations to political reform and economic redirections.
At appoint where the country faces imminent political and economic transition it is important to point out that all politic-economic reforms are ultimately carried out by the public service as a matter of ‘normal’ duty – in public offices, into our communities, and to the international arena.
Public service reforming therefore must be underpinned by administrative restructuring that create an institutional structure and culture to accommodate specific political visions, economic directions, and monetary stances.
Without such comprehensive structural reforming, all political and economic visions will be met always with protected individual career interests, the tradition of ‘virement’ and corruption, and the need to ‘commission’ an individual officer in order to carry out a duty.
The time to make the public service a workplace only for professionals and managers with technical capabilities is long overdue. Political and economic reforms must start with clearing the platform of performance, setting the stage specifically for those that can sing the tune and dance the rhythm under such reforms.
Reshuffling and rearranging one layer of the public service, fiddling one aspect of the service (pay structure for instance), and even devolving certain divisions into provinces make for a joke against political and economic visions put forward as reform into the whole country. And at a time when we face Constitutional reform and related political and economic rearranging right through to our rural communities, the first and most important step to take is to ensure comprehensive public service reform – to ensure its possible emulation within provinces now and the reformed States and Community Governments.
The domino-effects of administrative reform on political and economic reform directions and effectiveness are natural institutional tendencies. Visions for political decentralization, economic diversifications and monetary deregulations for instance only make workable sense when pre-empted by a deregulated public service. On the other hand, wishes to continue with centralized governance and a pacified rural surround must be carried by a public service highly empowered to take ‘nationalizing’ and ‘intervention’ steps into the private sector and customary ownership.
One form of public service structure for a specific political and economic vision cannot efficiently and effectively carry out a different political and economic vision. And partial reforms along one particular form of public service simply become a stumbling block when applied within another form. Note the meaninglessness of contractual P.S. posts with a career public service secured with collective unionism. The P.S. simply gets treated by subordinates and the SIPEU as being purely in league with politicians instead of being contracted managers of the service. Here, the Executive, as the third party to effective governance, absolutely losses its meaning.
Within our obvious need for reform, we are to be aware that comprehensive and meaningful reform must have the backdrop of a highly efficient and well-capacitated police form. Such a force must have the most efficient reach from central command to the remotest community, surpassing any similar reach and network within the private sector and by any cultural or island grouping.
And I believe this is where the RAMSI focus should have been at, in anticipation of our much needed political and economic reforms. This would be more meaningful for the ‘Rehabilitation’ and ‘Restructuring’ aspects of RAMSI work than competition with the government for a larger slice and control of the aid program.
By ANGIKINUI FRANCIS
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
