That the civil service is not politicised is no longer a topical issue. What has resulted therefrom is the poor delivery of services to the nation. When Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) Central Committee and the Executive met at Rre Dada’s residence not so long ago, they were in unison that senior civil service positions had to be occupied by those who are known to be BDP members for this would enable party programmes and policies to be implemented. It is generally agreed that political parties appoint their own to key political positions in government in order to guide the implementation of such programmes and policies. No debate in this regard. But therein lies a big problem when the civil service cadres under the politically appointed ones are also expected to be politically aligned. History is abound with disaster occasioned by politicising the civil service with examples from our immediate neighbours Zimbabwe and South Africa.
The President of the BDP and that of the Republic His Excellency Dr M.E.K. Masisi addressed the nation after the first day of a retreat in which his Executive, Members of Parliament and former senior elders of the party were in attendance. The President held that ‘….We have to look with deeper scrutiny at the key tool of governance and delivery-the Public Service-and recognise the depth of degradation therein, for therein lie answers to implementation failures that seemed to have become a norm in the post-90s period of our existence as a sovereign state.’
From the above statement by the President, it tells me one thing: that he is admitting that his party and by extension himself, have failed to provide political leadership in so far as the delivery of services to the nation are concerned. I should be fair to the President by saying that the rot in the Public Service does not begin with his administration. That said, he will be reminded that before he assumed the position he now holds, he served in the Executive of the same BDP government particularly and specifically in the Office of the President as the Minister of Presidential Affairs and Public Administration. By virtue of this ministerial position, he was the political head of the Public Service.
During the Public Service strike in 2011, he is reported to have told those public servants who felt uncomfortable to leave the service and go home without providing political leadership to solve the problems and challenges faced by public servants back then. A few years post the strike, government allowed civil servants to form businesses through which they could do business with government. And the reason for this development was for the civil servants to augment their meagre wages. This is laughable to say the least. I have opposed this development which I still do on the basis that it would be a recipe for serious conflict of interest between the civil servants themselves and government. How could civil servants deliver services for which they compete for? From where I stand, this was a political decision by government to win back the confidence she had lost as a result of the public service strike. In the end, the Civil Service was and is still well and truly politicised.
‘The depth of degradation….and administration failures’ as fairly and ably suggested by the President cannot be disputed. But by placing the blame on civil servants in the context of his speech is utterly disingenuous on his part. The recent frequency in chopping and changing senior civil servants at every turn is not the sustainable route to take. It causes instability, fear and anxiety in the civil service as it is highly likely to cause the perceptions, rightly or wrongly, that some public servants are purged for political or other reasons. If the purge narrative is anything to go by, it should suggest appointment to the public service is not only premised on the expected ethos of such service as contemplated in the Public Service Act and the Public Service Charter, but on pure political considerations and expediency as already alluded to.
As a consequence, ‘the depth of degradation….and extreme administration failures’ are bound to occur as they have become the norm. As conceded by the President himself in the recent past, his government is visibly naked in the eye of the public as evidenced by the frequent and damaging leaks of government high value secrets by none other than senior civil servants as it emerged in the leaked audio of a meeting between the DCEC, DIS and the DPP. It is not far-fetched to conclude that in the said meeting, there were voices of reason and those who were hell bent to pursue a political agenda in arguing that the P100 billion case has strong legs to stand on. When voices of reason and those premised on political agenda meet, disaster strikes.
While it is acceptable that the President has acknowledged the precarious situation the civil service finds itself in, he seemed in his speech not to offer sustainable solutions. Accepting that his party is in power and therefore incumbent upon it to deliver on its election promises in terms of programmes and policies, his party does not own the civil service like it does Tsholetsa House. Not all civil servants are BDP’s members or sympathisers. Put differently, civil service positions should be occupied on the basis of merit and not political affiliation. When political affiliation becomes the trump card, everyone flocks to the BDP for obvious reasons-to be at the high table. I believe the BDP and the President should move away from the idea that only BDP members have a right to be appointed to senior let alone other civil service positions.
Otherwise, it runs the unavoidable risk of an inefficient, ineffective and demotivated civil service. Government should move with the speed of light to prohibit civil servants from doing business with her in order to prohibit the already rampant conflict of interest which in itself and of itself breeds corruption, abuse of office and other serious forms of misconduct. South Africa is probing State Capture which has been occasioned by party affiliation over merit in the civil service. Are we not learning something from the dangers of cadre deployment notwithstanding the fact that it has been practiced for as long as one can remember?
The President’s view on the civil service will not bring any significant change because of cadre deployment. His party has resolved, perhaps with a daring finger, to pursue cadre deployment notwithstanding its deleterious consequences. The recent and deliberate overlooking of the two Deputy Commissioners of Prisons for appointment to the substantive position of Commissioner is one of the reasons why other civil servants in similar circumstances and so overlooked, become disgruntled and unproductive. Is it possible to accept that the two Deputies were so poor and inferior to be appointed? It can’t be! I am afraid the President has not provided sustainable, long term solutions for the civil service. In fact, he has jumped from the frying pan into the fire.
The frequent chopping and changing of senior civil servants and at the blink of an eye is not the solution to modelling it into an apolitical structure. In the end, more of the same is certain to obtain. ‘The depth of degradation…..and the extreme administrative failures’ will be the order of the day in the civil service. Government is therefore reaping the fruits of politicising the civil service to the detriment of the nation. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise as always. Judge for Yourself!
I will not tire from reminding all and sundry about the immediate threat of Covid-19 virus. Let us all adhere to the health protocols. It is our civic duty to do so to prevent the hardships caused by the pabdemic.
