Dr Barbara Carby, former head of the Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM), and now director of the Disaster Risk Reduction Centre at The University of the West Indies, has lamented the manner in which information was disseminated during Jamaica’s preparations for Hurricane Matthew. According to Carby, the visibility of the ODPEM was dwarfed by politicians. So seemingly dwarfed was the role of the ODPEM that its head, Major Clive Davis, was noticeably absent from briefings, as Carby noted, much unlike her time as ODPEM head and that of her successor Ronald Jackson.

Carby’s point does not, in my view, diminish the importance of the role of the politician. Rather, she is seeking to call attention to a deeper issue. This deeper issue is reflected somewhat — at least by extrapolation — in observations made by William Mahfood, when he recently lamented the apparent absence of a clearly defined decision-making process in the Ministry of Economic Growth and Job Creation. Mahfood suggested that Minister Daryl Vaz, despite his energy and getting-it-done mentality, cannot be construed as representing a “system”.

Gleaner columnist Martin Henry expanded on the concerns of Mahfood, emphasising that the business of public administration needs processes, not personalities. In contrast to the contentions of Mahfood and Henry, theJamaica Observer, in its editorial on Sunday, October 2, spoke in praise of personalities like Vaz — who the paper contended had shown leadership in the preparation for Hurricane Matthew, saying that Jamaica needed more people like Vaz.

The question of the roles of the civil servant and the processes of the public service, on the one hand, and that of the politician, on the other, are brought into sharp focus by the concerns of Carby and Mahfood and the contrasting position of the

Jamaica Observer.

A large part of the reason the situations cited by Carby and Mahfood have brought into focus the roles of the politician and the processes of the civil service is that only a few weeks before there was an even more disturbing precedent that may be characterised as ministerial over-reach. This precedent relates to the decision of Minister Horace Chang to intervene in a dispute involving the human resources manager at the National Irrigation Commission and his decision to reinstate her to a post from which she had been dismissed. The minister apparently made the determination, in his own discretion, that she had been wrongfully dismissed. This case stands alongside — though going in the opposite direction — the alleged cases in which the political leadership is reported to be involved in the hiring and firing decisions of contract employees in the civil service.

Roles of the civil servant vs the politician

Public administration experts have long wrestled with the practice of the interface between the roles of civil servants versus those of politicians. The debate has centred on the practices in emerging democracies, both those that became politically independent in the last 50 – 60 years and those that have emerged in countries that were once under totalitarian rule.

In the case of the former, countries such as Jamaica have sought to adopt the protocols of the Westminster model in which the politician is responsible for making policy and leaving the implementation to civil servants who have day-to-day operational responsibility for the ministry, in which the permanent secretary is the accountable officer.

Public administration scholar, Professor Emeritus Edwin Jones, in his 2016 publication entitled

Contending with Administrivia — Competition for Space, Benefits and Power is of the view, however, that Jamaica has not fully internalised the Westminster system which strongly adheres to the separation of responsibilities politicians and civil servants. Jones cites several reasons for this, including fear on the part of civil servants.

The recent events, cited above, in which: (a) the head of ODPEM, an operational functionary, was reportedly noticeably absent from briefings on Hurricane Matthew, (b) the former head of the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica expressed concerns about the lack of systems in the Ministry of Economic Growth and Job Creation, and (c) a minister reinstating a civil servant, bypassing the civil service machinery, are examples of what Jones describes as weak application of the Westminster model in relation to role separation in the public service.

In the case of governments in post-totalitarian regimes, for example Yugoslavia, the struggle is that of removing the overhang of the culture in which politicians ran the civil service and in which technical experts and professionals played a subordinate role to politicians. Miro Hacek (2006), professor of public administration at the University of Ljubljana, reflecting on the situation in Slovenia, points out that in any civil service system, the governing process starts at the institutional level. The institutional framework, Hacek notes, is responsible for mediating between the civil service system, on the one hand, and the political system, on the other. The civil service draws power and obtains the support necessary for successful and efficient functioning from the political system.

Thus, for both newly formed democracies, both those emerging out of totalitarian contexts and older post-colonial systems, there is the unending concern about the proper role of the civil servant versus that of the politician. Both Hacek and Jones suggest that the efficiency and respectability of the civil service depend on how well defined the respective roles are and how well they are observed, though admitting that there is no perfect system.

In search of a speedy and sustainable model

The ‘Vaz’ solution, with which Mahfood and Henry are rightly uncomfortable, represents, as the

Jamaica Observer editorial posits, an attempt at speed and efficiency in getting results. The problem with locating the workings of government too heavily on individuals is that of sustainability — which was the concern of Mahfood and Henry.

Zeljko Sevic of the University of Dundee and Aleksandra Rabrenovic of the University of Belgrade, in a paper entitled ‘Depolitisation of the public administration: towards the civil service’, appear to have had similar concerns as Mahfood and Henry when they argue that, while legal science experts may focus on what ought to be, and political scientists look at influences on the political process, the economist is usually concerned with efficiency. Individuals working without some kind of institutional framework cannot be relied upon to be reliable and consistent regardless of the brilliance of the individuals.

As Hacek points out, the processes of government begin with an institutional framework, and what we see in the three cases cited above is potentially a de-emphasising of the process in one instance, the absence of process in another, and the violation of the process in the next. Thus, while all three produce results, the larger question is whether is results are ideal, or set a precedent that may be followed.

According to Sevic and Rabrenovic, the role of politicians is to define a political ideology that directs the policy apparatus. The troubling question is whether a political ideology is to be read into the seeming sidelining of the technical experts at ODPEM, as Carby suggests, the centralisation of the operations of a new ministry in one man, as Mahfood and Henry lament, and the insertion of ministerial directives in a human resources matter in an agency, as occurred at the National Irrigation Commission.

In relation to the actions of Minister Chang, it is to be noted that it is quite in order for a minister to intervene in a matter affecting a member of staff of his or her ministry, but, consistent with the rules of the civil service, the farthest the minister should go when a matter is brought to his or her attention is to ensure that the permanent secretary causes the ministry’s operatives to follow the established processes.

Sevic and Rabrenovic, commenting on their cross-country comparison of practice in the civil service, observe that there two adverse processes are at work. They point out that “in some countries there is increasing political control over public administration to ensure that bureaucracy adopts the new political signals”, while “in others, there appears to be a relaxation of political control in order to enable public administration to adapt to external changes by virtue of its organisational capacities”.

While it is expected that the still new Andrew Holness Administration will wish to stamp its authority on the operations of government, it needs to be careful lest it sets untenable and unsustainable precedent in respect of how matters are handled. The examples cited above, in which the role of the civil servant is subordinated to that of the politician, in operational matters, are not the kinds of models of leadership and governance that the current Government would wish to adopt.

Dr Canute S Thompson is a certified management consultant and lecturer in educational policy, planning and leadership in the School of Education, The University of the West Indies, Mona. He is a co-founder of the Caribbean Leadership Re-Imagination Initiative. Send comments to the Observer orcanutethompson1@gmail.com.