What civil/public service for Ghana?
The debate rages on: the spoils system or the merit system, which one for the civil/public service? This discussion has gone on since our attainment of nationhood. Of course, it is not posed in those terms and is raised at every change of government.
Advertisement
On such occasions, the victorious party affirms its right to replace key bureaucrats whilst the losing party cries foul, insisting that the replaced top officers have been victimised. It is time we, as a nation, reached a consensus on the system to adopt. The key factors to consider for that exercise must be competency in public policy analysis and formulation, and efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery.
The purpose of the civil/public service
The civil service was born when the Roman ruling class conceived the idea of engaging a corps of officials whose responsibilities would be to proffer professional advice and formulate policies/programmes which they would execute on their behalf. Such an arrangement would free the rulers from minor administrative chores and enable them to concentrate on their core mandate: strategic directions and decisions required for the socio-economic development of the society. The officials were recruited through patronage and inheritance. Imperial China, which engaged state agents through the same method, recognising its drawbacks, quickly abandoned it in favour of a system based on merit. In the 19th Century, Western Europe, through their contacts with China, realised its benefits. Great Britain, in particular, fully embraced the concept and developed rigorous competitive processes of recruitment and advancement based on merit and performance for its civil service. Reforms instituted insulated the civil servant from politics. Henceforth, his loyalty was to the Crown though he was expected to serve the government of the day loyally and diligently. (The term civil servant, incidentally, was coined in India during the British colonial administration.)
Features of the civil service inherited from Britain
At independence, Ghana inherited this meritocratic, politically neutral bureaucracy governed by a set of rules and regulations known as the General Orders (GOs). Civil servants were expected to comply with every single article in it. Thus, they were forbidden from fraternising with politicians or responding to public criticism whilst politicians were to desist from criticising them publicly; they were to place the interests of the State above their own; they would be investigated if they seemed to live above their means, etc. The establishment of the Public Services Commission was to ensure the recruitment of brilliant, talented young people. Entering the service young, they acquired the requisite knowledge, skills and experience for effective performance through periodic, systematic capacity-building interventions.
They had security of tenure of office and survived the different regimes, becoming the institutional memory of the service. On the other hand, the ministers, appointed and removed at the pleasure of the Head of Government, were “birds of passage”.
This system makes the underlying assumption that civil servants of all grades would work with total commitment, professionalism, integrity and selflessness under every government. Acts of negligence or disloyalty are not countenanced. Even if the bureaucrat favoured a political party, his bias should not cloud his judgement or lead to partisan decisions.
Benefits and shortcomings of the merit system
The recruitment process in a meritocratic system ensures that only the brightest and the best are selected for each position. Their career progression is systematically monitored at every grade. Through regular socialisation, they learn the culture of the service. Whatever experience and additional knowledge and skills they acquire on the job remain at its disposal. The mistrust and suspicion that sometimes exist between the political rulers and the bureaucrats is the main disadvantage of this system.
The spoils system
The spoils system is a system of distributing government jobs as rewards for political services. Introduced in the 1830s in the United States (US) under Andrew Jackson (US President 1829-1837), it had become entrenched by 1845. One of Jackson’s staunch supporters, Senator William L. Marcy of New York, had argued that he saw “nothing wrong with the rule that to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy”. In spite of strong criticisms from his opponents, Jackson forged ahead, stoutly defending it. Soon, there ensued general calls for reform because the system engendered “official incompetence and corruption” and also caused administrative disruption and chaos at the federal level every four years. Reforms undertaken did not eliminate it and it has largely remained part of American culture.
Advantages and drawbacks of the spoils system
The apologists for the spoils system stress that the officer appointed from outside looks at issues with fresh eyes and is not bound by previous decisions. Also, since he/she shares the same political beliefs as his/her minister, their loyalty and zeal are potentially boundless. That enables the two to work in great harmony and understanding. Besides, since their fortunes are tied together, they would go to any length to achieve success.
However, the same fact can be a drawback, for since they are driven by the party’s ambition to retain power, they can compromise their scruples in order to achieve their goals. Moreover, most political appointees enter the service with little or no knowledge of the structure and workings of the service; they are often ignorant of the rudiments of policy analysis and formulation, and lack basic administrative skills and speech writing. Besides, since they are seen as outsiders, they do not always receive maximum co-operation from colleagues and subordinates. Again, being in the service for a limited period, they more readily succumb to corrupt practices. Also, when they leave the service, they do so with all the knowledge and skills acquired in the course of their service.
The current situation in Ghana
The merit system is, in theory, what governs the civil/public service. In practice, however, it is largely the spoils system that prevails. Successive governments have frequently exerted undue pressure and control over the management of civil/public servants: recruitment, training, placement, promotion, etc.
Recent events should serve as a wake-up call for us as a people. Major lapses in some state institutions, such as the Bank of Ghana flying US$ four million in a chartered aircraft to Brazil as appearance fees for Black Stars players and officials; the misuse of the VVIP Lounge to smuggle 12.5kgs of cocaine to the United Kingdom (UK); and the unpardonable error of printing the name of Uhuru Kenyatta as the President of Ghana in the official brochure at the 59th independence anniversary celebration, caused extreme international embarrassment (not to say opprobrium) to the nation. Public service organisations such as the Police Service, the Electoral Commission and the Bureau of National Investigation have increasingly demonstrated excessive partisanship and bias in favour of the ruling party. Reports from other public services are equally scary.
Conclusion
Ghana’s civil service once enjoyed a worldwide reputation as high-performing, disciplined, politically neutral and well motivated. It must recapture its lost lustre and once again provide professional, loyal, proactive and efficient service to every government and the citizenry. To achieve this, a major home-grown reorganisation must be undertaken. Such a reform would allow the politicians’ role vis-à-vis that of the bureaucrats to be distinct: the former concentrating on their dreams, the latter implementing the dreams. A reward system that sanctions deviant, underperforming and disloyal officers, but rewards high performing, loyal and trustworthy officers would be a key component of this reform. The time is now!