Paper to be presented at the Multinational Conference on Improving the Quality of Public Services and Public Management (27-29 June 2011)
Title
The bureaucracy under the inclusive government in Zimbabwe
Author
Ricky Munyaradzi Mukonza
Tshwane University of Technology (South Africa)
Department of Public Management
Contact Details
Cell: +27745037780
Email addresses:
Or
Abstract
In the recent past African countries that experienced disputed elections such as Kenya and Zimbabwe ended up with inclusive governments, also commonly referred to as governments of national unity (GNUs). A lot has been written on the subject and most of the literature generated focuses on the merits and demerits of this political phenomenon in general terms. This paper however, seeks to analyze how top public servants in Zimbabwe have reacted to the change in the country’s political terrain brought about by the inclusive government. It is a given in public administration and political theory that the administrative stratum of government follows the direction given by the political stratum. The paper, however argues that top public servants in Zimbabwe have taken time to transform to meet to the demands of the new political order and this has had a negative impact on the operations of the inclusive government, thus to service delivery. It is further contended that until there is harmony between political and administrative heads, particularly in ministries manned by former opposition political parties, squabbles will continue to bedevil the inclusive government and service delivery will not improve as anticipated. The notion of a politically neutral public service is interrogated to ascertain whether it is feasible in Zimbabwe or elsewhere in the world for that matter. A qualitative research approach is employed through the analysis of different texts on and by the inclusive government and on the basis of the findings, a conclusion is reached. Experiences from other countries will also be utilized to further give weight to the arguments. A history of public service as well as a survey of the constitutional and legislative frameworks in Zimbabwe is given to give context to the arguments advanced in this paper.
Introduction
The signing of a power sharing agreement in 2008 between the Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) and the two formations of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) resulted in the formation of the inclusive government in February 2009. This development brought about fundamental changes in the politics of Zimbabwe. Since 1980 when Zimbabwe attained independence from colonial rule to 2008, the country’s political space, particularly in government has been dominated by ZANU (PF). The inclusive government meant ZANU (PF) had to share governmental power on almost equal terms with the two MDC formations. All this was done on the basis of a power sharing document, the Global Political Agreement (GPA) which inter alia, redistributes power among the different political players in the inclusive government. The GPA also implores all players in government work together for the benefit of the people of Zimbabwe. The paper among other things explores one of the key variables in the policy process and ultimately in service delivery namely the relationship between the bureaucrats and political officials. It is argued that the relations particularly between top public officials in some ministries manned by MDC ministers are poor and this impacts negatively on service delivery and thus militates against the letter and spirit of the GPA. The paper further interrogates whether the idea of a politically neutral public servant is possible under the inclusive government or any other government system. Lastly, recommendations are proffered on how best relations can be improved between political and administrative heads in the inclusive government. As a point of departure, an attempt is made to explain and contextualize the term top public official.
Top public officials explained
The terms top public official, top bureaucrat and top civil servant are sometimes used interchangeably as if they mean the same. For the purpose of this paper it is important to interrogate the meanings attached to all the three for clarity. Venter and Landsberg (2011:82) define public officials as people manning government offices; these could be employed by either the national or provincial governments of a country. Put in other words it refers to a component of a state’s management and public administrative apparatus which is sometimes referred to as the bureaucracy (Venter and Landsberg, 2011:82). It therefore can be derived that top public officials are those tasked with heading the different government departments. Closely linked with top public official is the term top bureaucrat. It might be plausible to trace the origins of the word bureaucracy. The word is derived from a compound Greek word bureau which means rule and kraten which refers to table. According to Hanekom and Thornhill (1983:117) the word bureaucracy conjures up different images but in its original sense means rule from the table and was used to refer to rule by public officials. Venter and Landsberg (2011:84) understand bureaucrat, which is a derivative of bureaucracy to refer to non-elected, professional staff and normally life long government employees. From the explanations provided, it seems the two terms means one and the same and any attempt to differentiate them has no real value. In some cases top public officials are referred to as top civil servants. Cloete (1995:20) defines civil servant as members of the public service. It is however important to observe that top civil servant refer to top public servants other than uniformed forces appointees
In the context of this paper, top public official refers to administrative heads in government departments or ministries and assume different titles from one country to another. In Zimbabwe, they are referred to as secretaries and differ from South Africa where they are called Director Generals while in Britain they are known as permanent secretaries. Irrespective of these semantic differences these top officials are in most cases the accounting officers of the entities they head. It is these functionaries who are the centre of discussion of this paper. Before focusing on them, an overview of the history of Zimbabwe’s public service is presented to give context to proceeding discussions.
A historical overview of public service in Zimbabwe
The advent of independence in 1980 presented the government of Zimbabwe with a number of challenges. From a public administration perspective transformation of the public service delivery system from a settler colonial administration that favoured a white minority to one that accommodates the majority black population was a priority (Chimhowu, 2010: 111). The Growth and Equity document and the Three Year Transitional Plan outlined government’s vision and agenda to of a socialist transformation in the society. One of the major challenges faced at the point was shortage of skills, particularly at the strategic levels of government. Jenkins (1997:581) argues that new Black ministers whose recommendations were critical in the appointment of permanent secretaries were not willing to work with top public servants from the previous government. The main reason was suspicion that these top officials were likely to sabotage government policies and programmes. Agere (1997:86) cites the example of the Ministry of Transport where resistance was demonstrated after the appointment of a black minister. This prompted the minister to go ahead and appoint a black permanent secretary and in other key positions in the ministry (Agere, 1997:86). The approach had its own problems; firstly in most cases the appointees did not have requisite skills to lead critical government projects. Secondly, where they had skills they did not have the experience to quickly fit into the vision of the new government. Although the government organised training programmes to assist public servants acquaint them with how government operated and to understand the rules and procedures guiding service delivery, still there were serious challenges in the implementation of government policies in key government sectors (Chimhowu, 2010: 111).
Towards the end of the first decade of black rule in Zimbabwe, government through the 1989 Public Service Commission Kavran Report identified some of its weaknesses. The Report, inter alia, revealed a bureaucracy characterized by ; lack of a performance management culture, arrogance, poor work attitudes, high staff turnover, a bloated and secretive (Chimhowu, 2010: 112). The other important findings were that there was general poor communication of decisions from top management to the lower strata of government as well as to the general public and there was duplication of functions. In other words the Report painted a gloomy picture of the Zimbabwe’s public service at the time. However what the Report did not say but is apparent in its contents is that there was general lack of leadership in the public service. The state of affairs portrayed by the Report called for reforms in the country’s public service. Nevertheless, no reforms were introduced until 1997 arising from a Customer Satisfaction Survey in 1996 showed that there were no changes in the manner in which the bureaucracy behaved. The situation was worsened by the negative effects brought about by the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) introduced in the early 1990s.
From 1996 to 2002 reforms in the public service were focused on making it result-oriented, in other words, maintain expenditure while at the same time address socio-economic challenges such as poverty, unemployment and service delivery as much as possible (Chimhowu,2010:114). Efforts were made to borrow private sector approaches such as entrepreneurship, this was combined with restructuring which focused on streamlining functions to eliminate duplication as well as achieve speedy decision making by compressing the top level grades (Chimhowu, 2010:114).
Between 2002 and 2008, the socio- economic and political crisis that hit the country did not spare the public sector. This however did not stop further public service reforms from being instituted and this time they were aimed at enhancing performance, service delivery and good governance (Chimhowu, 2010:115). Chimhowu (2010:115) further states that values such as integrity, honesty and ethical standards diminished in the public sector particularly from 2003 onwards as a result of the economic and political crisis. This prompted government to reform its ethical approach in 2005 and this included, inter alia, performance agreements with administrative heads. Administrative heads were in turn expected to conduct performance reviews for their staff to ensure that objectives of their ministries are met. Leadership was also an important component in the public sector reform. In that regard, executive management programmes were introduced at the Zimbabwe Institute of Administration and Management (ZIPAM) and these were targeted at middle managers and above (Chimhowu, 2010:115). A brief discussion on the constitutional and legislative framework guiding top public officials in Zimbabwe follows.
Constitutional and legislative framework for top public officials
Legislatively and constitutionally, top public officials in Zimbabwe are guided by the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 1979 and the Public Service Act, 1995. According to the Public Service Act, 1995, top public officials are referred to as secretaries and they are heads of their respective ministries. It must be noted that many official and non-official documents including the Global Political Agreement and different Southern African Development Community (SADC) Communiques wrongly refer to them as permanent secretaries. According to a Member of Parliament, Mr. Felix Magalela, the use of the term permanent secretary, though wrongly so, carries connotations of officials who are permanently employed by government irrespective of their performance (http://zimvest.com/there-are-no-E2%80%98%&permanent-secretaries accessed on 03/05/2011).
Constitutionally, Section 20.1.7 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 1979 as amended through Constitutional Amendment 19 gives the President power to appoint (permanent) secretaries. This position has however been contested by the MDC-Tsvangirai formation which argues that all top government positions including the appointment of secretaries, ambassadors and Provincial Governors should be done with the consultation of all the Principals in the GPA, that is, all the leaders of political parties in the agreement. In the past, the President appointed top public officials with recommendations from the minister of the concerned ministry and in consultation with the Public Service Commission (Agere, 1997:86). With the brief overview of the legislative and constitutional framework, the paper proceeds to look at the political- administrative interface in the inclusive government.
Political- administrative interface in the inclusive government
The importance of the relationship between top public officials and political heads in the execution of government responsibilities can not be overemphasized .Thornhill and Hanekom (1995:2) aptly put across the point when they wrote “An important phenomenon affecting the administration of public affairs is the relationship between the political head of a state department – the minister and top public officials his/ her department…”. In general terms general roles of the Minister are inter alia; providing political direction, leadership, motivation, control and accountability for the department they are in charge of. On the other hand public managers act as advisors to ministers with regard to technical and political matters, policy and resource management (Thornhill and Hanekom, 1995:2). The above implies that top public officials need to strongly identify with the policies of the government they serve. Given the above background it is important that an analysis of the relationships between ministers and top public officials in Zimbabwe’s inclusive government be done. This is particularly important in ministries manned by the Movement for Democratic Change.
The coming into being of the inclusive government in Zimbabwe brought in some changes on the political landscape notably the ministers from the two formations of the Movement for Democratic Change. The ministers, some of whom did not have experience in government were faced with the challenge of working with experienced top public officials appointed from the previous government. The initial unilateral appointment of these top officials by the President without prior consultation with Principals from the other political parties as prescribed by the Global Political Agreement did not inspire a spirit of trust and cooperation necessary for good working relations between ministers and their top officials. The mistrust partly explains the widely reported disagreements that rocked the inclusive government on the appointment of (permanent) secretaries. The argument put forward by the Movement for Democratic Change, particularly the formation led by Morgan Tsvangirai is that (Permanent) Secretaries in MDC led ministries must be appointed by the concerned party. Logically, this would lead to a workable relationship between the permanent secretaries and ministers and subsequently enhance implementation of government policies and service delivery. In resolving the issue, the parties agreed to let the appointed permanent secretaries serve their terms. The mistrust and power struggles between some MDC ministers and their permanent secretaries proved retrogressive for the inclusive government faced by the challenges of transforming the economy, achieving political stability, spearheading constitutional reform and delivery of services.