Maravi

Public service

Public service
By The Editor
Tue 13 Apr. 2010, 04:00 CAT

WE are citizens of Zambia by virtue of a social contract. That contract presupposes that we’ve agreed to govern ourselves according to certain norms and rules. Nothing is to be permitted in this place that we call our home, our country except that which conforms with the laws that govern us.

What Secretary to the Cabinet Dr Joshua Kanganja has complained about is a matter that should concern every citizen. Dr Kanganja has complained about the challenge posed by public officers whose pre-occupation is personal gain at whatever cost at the expense of service delivery.

It is abundantly clear to many of our people that the public service today is struggling to live according to its purpose – public service. Many people who are working in government are not doing so to provide the service and get what is rightly due to them.

A major motivation seems to be the prospect of officers doing all sorts of things that result in illicit personal benefits. Corruption and abuse of public office is so commonplace that a lot of the people who are involved in it do not even seem to realise that they are engaged in criminal activities. But why is this the case? Why should public servants be so comfortable with abuse of public resources and corruption in general without even realising that they are delving into the realm of criminal activities?

It is the Bembas who say that when a fish is rotting, it starts from the head. There is a problem with leadership in our country. It is the rot that people see in the top leadership that opens the public service to most of the abuse that we see. Leadership is a matter of example.

Subordinates will follow their superiors if those superiors do correct things which inspire them. If the superiors are indisciplined, chances are that the subordinates are going to follow in their footsteps and do the wrong things that they see their superiors doing.

This is the problem that our country has in the public service. Succeeding groups of public servants have observed their superiors pillaging and ransacking public resources without consequences.

This has led them to believe that this is the normal way to get by in the public service. Indeed a public servant who occupies an office that is capable of attracting bribes and other illicit benefits is considered foolish if they don’t use that opportunity. This is the culture of impunity that has arisen in our country.

There’s no denying that this crisis reached the highest level during the period when Frederick Chiluba was president of this country.

To him, there was no difference between public resources and private resources. Chiluba showed a high level of impatience with government procedures and processes. He seemed to be a person who wanted to run an ad hoc government with no clear bureaucracy to govern the complex processes that constitute government operations.

To Chiluba, government procedure was equivalent to one party dictatorship and democracy meant no procedure. This shift gave rise to a public service that was floating with no anchor in clear office practices that were capable of preventing corruption and abuse of public resources.

The cash budget which was introduced supposedly in a bid to try and control government expenditure meant that things such as tendering and other internal processes that were inbuilt in the government system to protect public resources were jettisoned.

This is what gave prominence to the nchekeleko culture that characterised the operations of Chiluba’s government. Nchekeleko literally means give me a bit. Government officials expected as a matter of right to receive ‘a bit’ from whatever government business they were superintending. Our country was reduced to kleptocracy – a nation where crime was swept off the streets and installed in government.

This is the culture that we are having to contend with. This is the culture that is giving Dr Kanganja the problems that he is crying about.

During his tenure, Levy Mwanawasa tried to instil some form of discipline back into government. We have never said that Levy was an angel or that he always did correct things, but the truth is he tried. We said it when he was alive and we say it now that he is no longer alive, that he tried.

We did not spare him criticism when we thought that he went overboard. Neither should we deny him the acknowledgement of his efforts when that is due. We say this because Levy inherited a dangerous kleptocracy from Chiluba but decided to publicly turn against his political benefactor, exposing the crimes that Chiluba was committing in State House.

That action alone, although not eradicating corruption, sent a clear message to everybody in the public service and in the country that no one was above the law. If Chiluba, the self-proclaimed master dribbler could be made to face the temerity of his actions, what would happen to an ordinary civil servant who abused his office or stole from the people? By that action, Levy moved in a manner that began to restore sanity in the management of our public affairs. It was not an easy process.

It was beset with many setbacks and difficulties, but a process had been put in place which could help our country move forward. The problem that the civil service has is the emergence of a political culture that allows public servants to benefit privately at the expense of the public. And unless this culture is destroyed and replaced by a culture of public accountability, what Dr Kanganja is complaining about will not go away.

If Levy’s legacy is defined by an attempt to change this political culture, Rupiah Banda’s legacy is going to be defined by a dogged attempt to reverse the efforts of his predecessor in fighting corruption and creating an environment in the public service that does not tolerate abuse of public resources. Levy, for all the criticism that could be levelled against him, tried to instil a culture of frugality.

He also tried to restore a sense of public shame when public officers did wrong. To that extent, a number of people that worked closely with him were prosecuted when he served as president.

Rupiah is headed in the opposite direction. He does not give anyone the impression that he is truly interested in ridding the public service of the culture of abuse that has become endemic over many years. If anything, Rupiah seems prepared to protect crime. His public posture on the questionable acquittal of Chiluba has sent a clear message that he is not concerned about fighting corruption. The public service is very sensitive to the psychology of the head of state. If the head of state is fighting corruption, it is likely that the public service will try to follow suit. But if the head of state is seen to be condoning corruption, they will follow suit.

This is the challenge that our country has. Rupiah has not sent the right kind of signals to the public service. What this means is that the complaint that Dr Kanganja has raised is unlikely to be addressed in any meaningful way. If the higher echelons of power are suspected of condoning corruption and abuse, the lower levels of the civil service cannot be sorted out. Rupiah has done damage to stewardship of public resources.

Labels: CHILUBA, CIVIL SERVANTS, CORRUPTION, JOSHUA KANGANJA

posted by MrK @ 3:07 PM