Public sector reform

TREVOR SUDAMA

The tardiness with which sanctions are decided upon in the public service adds to the general malaise which underlies its functioning. The investigative and disciplinary process could take years to be completed and, if suspended from duty, public servants’salaries would not be substantially affected.

Then there is the pervasive view that, since public servants generally provide a service and not a marketable product, their output was not measurable and therefore performance could not be assessed on any objective criteria. The result was that any attempt at establishing a regime of accountability was aborted. Thus, in determining performance, reliance was placed on the subjective evaluation of supervisors through annual reports which enlarged the scope for favouritism and bias. In consequence, a culture of lethargy and non-responsibility developed in the public service which affected its general behavior, outlook and performance. Clock-watching became endemic and promotion was related to length of service.

Part of the problem which affects the public service is a perspective of historical origin. From the mid 1950s onwards, a special relationship developed in TT between public servants and governing politicians due to the fact that for thirty continuous years, between 1956 and 1986, a single political party (the PNM) held office and there appeared to be no prospect of their losing office. During this period, the question of alternation of political parties in power did not arise. The issue of neutrality could not be tested. As a consequence, public servants saw the PNM as the natural party of government as Lloyd Best would affirm. They saw little distinction between party and Government and were equally happy to serve both simultaneously. The arms- length relationship between the public service and the political directorate was therefore compromised.

Moreover, in the 1956 general election, public servants overwhelmingly supported the victorious PNM party to which there was an emotional attachment and unspoken allegiance. A kind of patron/client relationship emerged between governing politicians and public servants. Such a situation seemed to have created the notion of a privileged status for the latter and invested them with an aura of authority, knowledgeability and confidence which masked the deficiencies in their competence.

Returning to the issue of public sector reform and the role of service commissions, I had made the following observation over a decade ago in a column of 22/02/04:-“If human resource recruitment, deployment and discipline are a critical, if not the most critical managerial function, then, as far as the public service is concerned, the commissions’ responsibilities and the manner in which they are performed are fundamental to the proper and efficient management of these services.” In a later column of 22/11/05 I argued that a debate should be initiated on the place of service commissions in the governmental system.

I said then, “The question that must be debated is the relevance of service commissions in modern public administration… that is whether they should be eliminated completely and, if so, replaced by what institutions or whether they should be reformed. I have myself argued that the service commissions need to re-examine their focus and modus operandi. They need to see themselves primarily as exercising personnel management functions and not judicial functions……They must acquire the technical expertise and support services to deliver swift and efficient decisions in the recruitment, training and deployment of human resources in the public sector. They also have the responsibility to ensure that fairness and justice is achieved and they have been especially established to protect public servants from bias, victimization and discrimination by the political directorate.” The question to be addressed is whether there are conflicting objectives pursued by service commissions and whether they could be reconciled and their operations reformed and revitalized towards achieving a more efficient, effective, productive and resilient public service.