Fewer Ministries, Part-Timer Ministers

By TP Saran

The evidence available indicates that the absence of the six ministers has not impacted adversely on the running of their respective ministries.
So why spoil a good thing?

There are always two sides to any situation, one dark, and one less so when one takes a broader, higher, deeper perspective. And the current political deadlock is no exception.

In fact, it has demonstrated to the people that the country can still function normally with part-time ministers, currently designated Acting ministers. By extrapolation and an extension of the same reasoning, it can easily be seen that the country can do with less ministers too. That means fewer ministries. That means, too, that one minister can be responsible for more than one sector of activity, a few of which can be clustered functionally under one umbrella ministry. For example, social services, health and poverty can be grouped under social welfare as they are so closely linked. So too energy and environment. It does not require rocket science to do such clustering; other countries e.g. Singapore already do it.

A quick round of the six ‘orphaned’ ministries following the resignation of their respective ministers has shown that work is going on as usual. In fact better, in a more serene atmosphere, without the minister being around all the time to breathe down the neck of those who already know what they have to do, under the direction of their superiors and heads. The Acting ministers have only come for a couple of hours daily to be apprised of matters which they should be concerned with, that is strategy and policy, Cabinet papers, or any urgent issue of national, regional or international importance that the minister’s or Cabinet’s attention needs to be drawn to.

There is a better working atmosphere because busy officers are not summoned to the minister’s office instantaneously — mind you not instantly but instantaneously – to, for example, provide some information or tackle some problem that could jolly well have been dealt with in due course. It is such disturbances, one among others, that disrupt the smooth running of work when a full-time, overbearing minister, with a bloated ego to boot, is around. Besides, there is an incessant flux of all manner of people who come for personal or vested interest to the minister. Another collateral damage is caused by the presence of an excessive number of ‘advisers’ whose role every government to this day has refused to define. Further, they occupy valuable office space which even some high officials are denied.

To all intents and purposes, the evidence available indicates that the absence of the six ministers has not impacted adversely on the running of their respective ministries. So why spoil a good thing? – is the question on the lips of most thinking citizens. Leading to the next logical idea that the government has a golden opportunity to become lean and trim, therefore more efficient and less costly to the country, thus releasing financial resources for addressing other more urgent concerns.

Both the crisis in America and the Eurozone crisis have led serious analysts to the conclusion that BIG GOV can no longer deliver, is not sustainable because it is wasteful. We have a chance to do a mid-course (well, sort of: it’s more like an early course) correction. What about not missing it? 

 PMSD: Reality or demagogy?

In taking the stand that he has with respect to the President appointing, according to set procedure, members of the PSC, the PMSD himself has exposed itself to a possible criticism: that in his ministry the interests of non-Creoles are not likely to be addressed by Creole officers. Since he is a mature minister, that also a Vice Prime Minister, we have a right to expect of him that he sends the right signal to all Mauritian citizens irrespective of their race, creed or ethnicity. Does his call reflect the reality in his ministry?

Further, a doubt has also been thrown on the Presidency if not the President himself. Add to that the declaration of Hughes Johnson, the new Creole member, that he will act as a Mauritian citizen, and this compounds matters. For it may imply that the other members may act other than as Mauritian citizens. Isn’t that likely to tarnish the image of the PSC and undermine the confidence of the population in that institution? Moreover, does it mean that on being appointed all members of public bodies must make loud declarations in the media about their intention to act as full-blooded Mauritian citizens? Isn’t that what they are expected to do?

What a pity indeed if that were not to be the case. It would show how immature we still are as a people, even after over 40 years of democratic Independence.

On the other hand, if appointing members to public bodies is a balancing act, then this must be thought of well in advance so as not to give rise to the kind of situation which we have faced, and that opens a flank for criticism or a feeling of being left out.

The issue really boils down to having the right person in the right place. But who is the right person?

Here Nita Chicooree comes to our help. In her article titled The Farce of Justice in last week’s issue of this paper, she observed that ‘Democratic institutions do not guarantee fairness and transparency. High ideals, principles and a set of values as guidelines for right governance do.’

For the sake of our country, and its current and future generations, we sincerely pray that the President nominated members who are imbued with ‘high ideals, principles and a set of values’ …

* Published in print edition on 5 August 2011