Politicising public officers

A RECENT statement in the media attributed to the Leader of the Opposition regarding public officers would seem to have taken our politics to a new level. The office of Chief Medical Officer and other high ranking office holders of the Ministry of Health were reported to have been described as “a failed medical team now turned propaganda team” with respect to their guidance to the country on the covid19 pandemic. This would represent a very damming allegation coming from such a high office holder.

If this statement is in fact true it would have certainly set a new precedent, where a politician is openly crossing the line to drag public officers into the political realm. While in the cut and thrust of politics politicians are entitled to hold the Government to account and criticise each other or even engage in personality attacks, all in an attempt to score political points, the law does not permit public officers to be drawn into the political arena. Indeed, the Public Service Commission regulations specifically insulate the public officer from the political sphere, a dictum that must be respected for its merits until it is changed.

Public officers are guided by the regulations of 1966 which essentially indicate that they do not take direct instructions from politicians but are accountable to their respective permanent secretaries. They are also specifically restricted from soliciting the intervention of Members of Parliament or ministers in the performance of their duties. Failure of a public officer to adhere to these regulations may result in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings for misconduct, a fact of which officers are always mindful.

High-ranking technical officers may also periodically give guidance and advice to the line ministers in concert with or via their respective permanent secretaries which may or may not be accepted by line ministers in their development and execution of government policy. These have been the broad parameters that have guided both politicians and public officers over the decades, under the principle of separation of powers between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Many have questioned the logic, relevance or even wisdom of this arrangement but that argument is irrelevant in this instance.

The statement by the Leader of the Opposition is sad and unfortunate. It is unbecoming of the stature and prominence of the office, given that the existing regulations do not allow the officers in question the opportunity to publicly defend themselves, unless they seek private legal redress. As a former minister and prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition ought to have known the limits of her political reach. This brazen, unprovoked attack on humble public officers who are simply doing their jobs cannot be condoned nor be allowed to establish a new standard for politicians.

Public officers are routinely forced to function with limited resources, limitless bureaucracy, and public condemnation daily, yet deliver quality service to an unforgiving citizenry. Such political attacks do nothing to inspire officers to persevere against substantial odds to perform their duties. It undermines commitment and insults their dedication and patriotism. In embracing the principle of separation of powers, the framers of the constitution were mindful of the dangers of allowing comingling of the three arms of government. Public officers must be allowed to freely perform their duties without the threat of political persecution hanging over their heads. Even politicians must have limits.

What was even more despicable was the severity and personalisation of the attack – a level of political brutality and desperation never before witnessed. These officers were tried and convicted in a court of public opinion by the leader of a large segment of our population, whose words and actions weigh heavily on the minds of supporters. Though difficult in their moments of political exuberance and excitement, politicians must resist the temptation to treat defenceless public officers as political targets at their convenience.

The professional reputation and integrity of these individuals would have suffered irreparable damage by this frontal attack from the Leader of the Opposition and must be roundly condemned as having gone too far. Civility and public decency would dictate that political chauvinism, ego and pride should give way to nothing but an unequivocal apology for the personal hurt and harm perpetrated upon these officers. Public officers cannot be perceived as political targets by any member of any segment of the population.