Reduce the Size of Your Government, President Mills

Monday, January 19, 2009

News reports about the ongoing negotiations between some minority political parties (the RPD, CPP, PNC, and DPP) and the NDC administration for ministerial appointments give cause for concern. The jockeying for positions does not turn my crank.

 It doesn't give me any hope to celebrate President Mills' intention to run an all-inclusive government unless it will lead to drastic changes in the way government business is done. 

One drastic change that I expect concerns the size of government. Just like many Ghanaians who were dissatisfied with the large size of the government under Rawlings and Kufuor, I want to see a change for the better. This change means a reduction in the size of President Mills' government and a purposeful approach to ensuring consistency in the way the Ministries are dealt with. 

By May 13, 2006, the NPP government consisted of 43 substantive Ministers and 39 Deputy Ministers as well as numerous Special Assistants and Spokesmen whose activities were fully funded and supported in any other way by our weak economy!! Current developments and revelations speak volumes.

The question to ask is: Will the Mills NDC government operate with a smaller number of Ministerial portfolios to give Ghanaians the hope that something drastic will be done to reduce government expenditure at that level?

The change that the NDC touted on its campaign trails must be all-encompassing to the point that it will be reflected in the way government business is run.

I expect President Mills' government to give serious attention to how it handles matters concerning the designation of our Ministries so as to end the capricious and whimsical manner in which these institutions are handled. Let's replace the Ministers but keep the ministries out of those changes.

If there is need to rehabilitate the structures, let's go ahead to do so without tampering with their status. These frequent impulsive re-designations or creations destabilize affairs and create friction. We need consistency.

I invite our MPs to rise to the occasion by initiating measures/bills that will help us streamline matters. For all these years that we have been in existence as a country (Ghana), can we not tell that the various departments of life that the Ministries cater for have not changed nor will they ever change?

For example, issues concerning foreign affairs or the interior will not be expected to change so drastically as to overturn the ideas of “foreign affairs” or the “interior” for which a new Ministry must be created. 

What will be new phenomena may be the manner and methods by which the forces that determine the drift of life in those areas influence the dynamics of the situation. The environment itself will hardly ever change. For instance, armed robbers may adopt more sophisticated measures to outwit the law enforcement agencies.

But the Ministry of the Interior or that of Defence doesn't necessarily have to change its status or designation to be able to fight those criminals. It is only its modus operandi that must change. So, why should governments rush to re-designate Ministries and create new ones at will, regardless of the pressure on the national economy?

Under previous governments, especially Kufuor's NPP administration, too much was done to re-designate the Ministries anyhow, which created instability. For instance, Kufuor re-designated in 2003 the Ministry of Transport and Communications to the Ministry of Communications and Technology and later changed it to something else.

The Ministry of Roads, Highways later became the Ministry of Roads, Highways and Transport, only to be re-designated into something else later on, which paved the way for three different Ministries (Ports, Harbours, and Railways; Roads and Highways; and Transport)!

There was also a Minister of State for primary, secondary and girl-child education. In all these instances, it was just a matter of creating employment opportunities for the “party boys and girls.”

Between 2001 and 2005, Kufuor's government functioned with 32 Ministries, excluding the 10 Regional Ministers. He arbitrarily re-designated some Ministries. From 2005 to 2009, there were 31 Ministries. Some of the ridiculous Ministries created by Kufuor should be abolished.

They included: Ministry of National Security (when there were already the Ministries of the Interior and Defence); and the Ministry of Fisheries (in spite of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture).

There was also the Ministry of Private Sector Development, and President's Special Initiative; Ministry of Information and National Orientation; Ministry of Tourism and Modernisation of the Capital City, now called Ministry of Tourism and Diasporean Relations; and the Ministry of Public Sector Reform.

The others were the Ministry of Communication; Ministry of Roads and Highways; Ministry of Ports, Harbours and Railways; Ministry of Aviation; Ministry of Energy; Ministry of Lands, Forestry and Mines; Ministry of Environment and Science; Ministry of State for Culture and Chieftaincy; Ministry of Presidential Affairs; Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; Senior Minister; and Minister of State at the Office of the President (Private Sector Development).

The NPP government started with the Media Relations Minister even though there was a Minister of Information and Presidential Affairs. The most ridiculous appointment went to J.H. Mensah, Leader of Government Business, as Senior Minister—without any Ministry!

Then, there were the Mines Ministry, Energy Ministry, and other people appointed as Ministers at the National Development Planning Commission and several other Ministers at the Presidency without portfolios. From 2003 to 2005, there was a Minister of Mines at the same time that there was a Ministry of Lands, Mines, and Forestry!!

The worst duplication of functions could be found in these three Ministries---Ministry of Defence; Ministry of the Interior; Ministry of National Security. What does one do that the other doesn't or can't?

Essentially, the Ministry of Defence appears to be focused on the Military while that of the Interior deals with the Police, CEPS, Prison Service, and Immigration Service. Where does the Ministry of National Security fall in-between these two Ministries? Or is it above them? Why?

Under Kufuor, there was a separate Ministry of Regional Integration and NEPAD in addition to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as if the latter couldn't be strengthened to perform the functions of the former. Then, there was also the Ministry of Communications and the Ministry of Information. Why? What does information do that communication doesn't or can't do? 

There is so much to worry about the designation and mandate of our Ministries that one doesn't know where to start from or how to end it. I suggest that serious efforts be made to streamline matters.

We must know what the main areas are so that the pertinent responsibilities will be given to the appropriate Ministries (and their Departments and Agencies) and efforts made to support them to function properly. We don't have to create a Ministry for every department of life and dissipate public funds on it!!

Here is my suggestion to help improve the situation. It may be too late for President Mills to factor into his considerations but not too late for us to begin contemplating if we want to make amends and reduce the size of government for the benefit of the country.

I suggest that we maintain the following Ministries as traditionally designated but with a change in their names, some of which are too long:

1. Ministry of Trade---to be responsible for regulating commerce and industries;

2. Ministry of Health; 

3. Ministry of Education—to be solely responsible for matters of education and nothing more;

4. Ministry of Foreign Affairs—all its foreign engagements. No need to add Regional Integration and NEPAD, etc. to this title to make it too mouthful;

5. Ministry of the Interior; 

The designation as Ministry of the Interior is enough. Those of Defence and National Security are not necessary and should be collapsed into this Ministry of the Interior. The re-designated Ministry of the Interior should take care of matters of defence, national security, etc.

It should be headed by one Minister and supported by Deputy Ministers. In its new form, this Ministry should control the institutions that deal with intelligence and security issues. Desks should be created at this Ministry for the Military, Police, Prisons Service, CEPS, Immigration, National Security Coordinator, BNI. It doesn't prevent the Heads of these institutions from directly dealing with the powers-that-be.

All these Heads are already automatic members of the National Security Council, I suppose. Coordination will be better than previously experienced. Furthermore, government should retool and empower the various institutions (CHRAJ, SFO, etc.) to deal with human rights issues and incorporate them into the Ministry of the Interior. 

in � l a �� � It is politically suicidal to begin pushing anybody around now, especially at a time that everything is in transition. 

From another angle, the admonition will affect Vice President John Mahama too. At least, from hindsight, we can tell that events preceding his choice as the Running Mate for President Mills in the elections showed that he was not favored by the Rawlingses and those in their camp. It was rumoured at the time that the Vice President didn't want to be pushed around by the Rawlingses.

In other words, he did not want to be at the beck and call of any so-called voice of authority in the political sense. Now in government, the first effort at pushing him and the President around is being made by Rawlings. How will he take it without impairing working relationships?

Granted that Rawlings' manner or method of issuing the admonition is part of an arsenal of strategies for “proactiveness” through open criticism of President Mills from forces within the NDC, it may have its good sides; but, generally, it will also have very negative long-term effects as far as governance is concerned.

First, it will tell the public that President Mills is dormant and needs prompting from the “Almighty” Rawlings to do the “appropriate thing.” 

Furthermore, it will tell the public that President Mills doesn't understand the enormity of the tasks facing his administration or that unless poked in the ribs, he cannot act. And if he goes ahead to fire these MCEs and DCEs, will it not portray him as a conveyor belt for Rawlings' promptings? Any impression of this sort will not help him and his administration. 

Criticism from within is good, especially if it aims at alerting President Mills to things happening on his blind side that he must adjust to; but if the immediate method for issuing the criticism is what Rawlings has opted for, then, the criticism will lose its value.

It will rather do more harm than any good for the government at this early stage of its existence and portray a bad side of President Mills to the political opponents who are sitting at the flanks and eagerly waiting for any demonstration of weakness to tell the electorate: “Ah, huh! We told you so but you didn't listen to us! Now, have you seen how President Mills is being manipulated to do his 'Master's' bidding?” 

Rawlings has to know that every leader has his or her own ways of effecting change and that the approach being used by the new NDC administration might be in consonance with the Social Democratic agenda and the Atta Mills government's avowed determination to present a better posture to the world than the “buga-buga” approach that he (Rawlings) used in ruling Ghana. 

This “buga-buga” leadership style is heavily criticized for its negative impact on the NDC itself and the constitutional democratic dispensation of the Fourth Republic that began in 1992. The reality today is that the days of “buga-buga” did not create a good name for the NDC and should not be brought back; otherwise, the NDC will quickly lose face and public support. 

I have a funny feeling that Ghanaians will be more willing to sympathize with (and to support) a new NDC government that makes genuine mistakes and accounts for them than they would do if the military-influenced brutal approaches of Rawlings are reintroduced into the conduct of government. 

No matter what the NDC achieved under Rawlings, it still has to do more under a new dispensation to be able to move into the future with hope. That is why the NDC functionaries must understand that each leader has peculiar worldviews and different approaches to tackling the tasks of governance.

The party must present a united front as it exercises the mandate given it by the electorate. It means that all those whose postures and utterances will clash with the new image of the party must recede to the background and adopt better ways of making their sentiments known.

After all, firing the MCEs and DCEs from office can be done without intensifying the animosity between the two political camps or destabilizing local government machinery during this transition. I will continue my discussion in the next segment.