The culture of governance

By Owei Lakemfa

THE gale of sacking appointed political office holders is here again like the seasonal rain. An executive governor for whatever reason takes a decision to sack his cabinet or some appointed officer and simply goes on to implement it without thinking through the process and manner such a decision is to be implemented.

Ministers, commissioners and top political appointees are supposed to be some of the best and brightest brains we have. It is assumed that such educated and rounded persons would leave their professions, jobs, or businesses to answer the call to serve. To ensure they are of high grade, the legislature spends time screening them.

Given this scenario, there should be some courtesy  in removing them. Ordinarily, the governor should call a meeting with such persons who have assisted in running the state and inform them of his decision. In other words, such men and women deserve some respect.

But the culture in many cases is that officials, including commissioners while on official assignments hear on radio or are informed by some friends or family members of their removal. This way of treating political appointees smarks of contempt and arrogance  by Their Excellencies.

On principle, being given a political appointment is an invitation to serve, so it is not expected that the appointee is taking the job for the pecks,  and should know that he holds office at the pleasure of the appointing officer. But this is no reason why such officials should be treated like discarded dirt.

There would be nothing wrong for His Excellency calling a meeting of those to be affected, informing them of his decision and thanking them for their services. Such appointees can even be given the courtesy of briefing their staff and informing their families that they are leaving govenrment. This manner of insensitive sack is why many self-respecting persons think twice before accepting political appointments.

There was an instance a few years ago, a top official sat down at a meeting in Aso Rock only to watch his replacement being sworn in. This style is rooted in military mentality and an impression that those appointed into political office are being done a favour. That, in the words of the late Sunday Afolabi, they are being invited into government to “come and chop”.

That is the belief that going into government is not for service, but a favour to enable the appointee partake in sharing the “ national cake”. What is clear is that after a decade of civil rule, the military mentality, to which we were subjected for 29 years still persists. Military rule is toxic; part of the challenge of civil administration, therefore, is to detoxicate the system.

This culture of governance destroyed the public service. In 1975, the late  General Murtala Ramat Muhammed and his deputy, General Olusegun Obasanjo without any courtesy or observing rules, sacked an army of public servants at national and state levels, including judges.

Those acts in which some officers on official courses or assignments were sacked for “ abstentism “ and hard working civil servants sacked “ with immediate effect ” for being “deadwoods”, destroyed the service. Civil service jobs were no longer secure and 34 years later, that sense of job insecurity pervades the system.

This tragedy was relived in Obasanjo’s second coming, this time in the garbs of a democrat. In the name of civil service  reforms, 129,000 federal public servants were sacked, in most cases without even paying their serverance benefits. What were proclaimed as  reforms became deformities and simply made a bad situation worse.

There is a new reform afoot; the introduction of some sort of tenure for top civil  servants, especially permanent secretaries who are expected to spend a maximum eight years in office. In spite  of this new policy being a welcome and popular one, it is not being implemented with fiat. Under other administrations, the affected officers would have been removed from office immediately. But in a welcome departure , the policy was made public and the officers to be affected have been given adequte notice to round off their work, tidy their desks and retire  gracefully.

Part of the problems of governance culture which we are facing is the presidential system. Under this quite expensive system, the president and governors are virtually above the law, and  in most cases are immuned to advice.

So much power is concentrated in their hands to the extent that the non-principled amongst them become quite unrestrained and even erratic. In the absence of strong parliaments and political opposition, some of them acquire the mentality of military dictators who brook no opposition, view  contrary suggestions as an affront, and political dissent as felony.

In contrast, in the parliamentary system, whoever is head of government or governor would only be first amongst equals. As a parliamentarian, he would come to the floor of the house debate and convince other parliamentarians.

The ministers or commissioners would be  drawn from parliament, so he will think twice before sacking them. He would need the votes of his ministers and commissioners in parliament so he would have to consult and in most cases, convince them before taking decisions.

In any case,  if he has to relieve them of their political appointments, he would need to treat them with courtesy as they would be retiring to parliament where they will be  equals.

Unlike today when a president or governor can ignore summons by parliament or treat parliamentary decisions with contempt, this would be almost impossible in a parliamentary system. We need our best brains to serve at all levels, for this they must be treated with respect.