It is probably a given that in any group or even national setting, the key components in defining both group and individual behaviour are the individuals themselves and the institutions they set up as their governance structures within the socio-cultural and political and economic spheres. The relational patterns between institutions and individuals invariably accepts that institutional interest is often closer to the national interest than the individuals as separate entities would often be. It is for that reason that ordinarily our nations, communities or societies are a reflection of the public institutions that exists in those social and political setups.
Public institutions generally define the way we organise our lives as individuals and groups of individuals and beyond that they also regulate and give meaning to the ways in which we interact and sanction, especially individual behaviour. This role of institutions is embedded in how these institutions distribute and actualise the use and practice of power in a national or communal setup. The manner in which we set up these institutions for the public good entails how as a collective we envision power relations, including the exercise of such power by various means. This include the power that we choose to vest in certain individuals as delegated authority, with the expectation that those individuals will necessarily use that power for the good of both the institutions and the public. The key processes that are normally central to the exercise of power by individuals within institutions are firstly, the degree and gravity of the delegated power itself. This defines the role of both the individual and the institution in how power must be used and the expected response by the different individuals making up the institution. The responses are expected to always exhibit concern and appreciation of that which the various public institutions uphold as the ideal and necessity for public advancement.
The second process is the communication patterns that institutions often develop as a culture of engagement and creating a platform for individuals to give meaning and vibrancy to their own institutions. Communication by individuals and groups within and across institutions is vital in the degree to which public institutions grow and sustain their relevance to fulfilling their core mandate and delivering to beneficiaries of their activities. The public domain in any national setting is very complex and individuals are invariably components of many diverse institutions which invariably imposes levels and degrees of restraint and control on the individuals. This calls for very intense and constructive communication means and an appreciation of the diversity of not only the individuals and groups, but also that of the mediums of communication required. Communication in any public setting is complex and requires intense commitment to reconciling diversity and differentiated public perceptions of the role of these public institutions. It can be argued that patterns of communication and what is often communicated within and across public institutions is often a result of how power is distributed within the various public institutions and the extent to which individuals as detached and as members of groups within the institution have sanctioned and accepted the use or exercise of power in decision making and delivery mechanisms.
The interaction of power and communication processes, then become the basis for the third process which is knowledge generated and advanced within the public institutions. The exercise of power and how communication strategies exert patterned behaviour, would often generate levels of information amongst individuals and groups within institutions and this knowledge becomes the a vehicle through which individuals and institutions realise their growth and ability to sustain that growth in an ever changing environment. This is knowledge about evolving roles of both the individual and the institution and how to continually reconcile conflict areas that may be a result of the diversity of not only the institutions themselves but also tensions within individuals who often are components of many public institutions with divergent core businesses. It is a given that amongst public institutions like government ministries, churches, political parties and various other social groupings, individuals often belong to many of these and the behavioural patterns, levels of engagement, communication patterns and expectations do vary amongst these. It could therefore be a challenge to manage individuals whose expectations and degree of belonging to public institutions is often clouded by membership to these other groupings.
It is always good to rely on the institutional culture and the collective to resolve national, group and even individuals challenges, but the reality is that public institutions don’t always work well. Public institutions can for a variety of reasons become ineffective and sometimes even incoherent to expectations of the beneficiaries. Public institutions can become pathological and ultimately be dysfunctional to the extent where they frustrate not only the individuals within those institutions but more importantly the intentions of the service to be rendered by such institutions to the public. Amongst many reasons of the dysfunctional reality could be just how the public institutions were set up and unclear mandates, which often shifts the piloting role to individuals and invariably the rail wagons become loaded with individual interest instead of the public or institutional interests.
Lastly, one of the greatest challenges that may constrain public institutions is the evasive attempt to reconcile freedom of individuals within institutions. Institutions are made up of individuals and often trying to uphold the freedom of the individual creates tensions and individual interests and those of the institution remain at odds. The processes of exercising power, delegated or not; communicating and creating a knowledge based culture within public institutions should all aim at balancing the roles and expectations of both the individual and the institutional dominance. The diversity of individuals requires that each continually adjust to reconcile their individual interest to that of the institution especially public institutions that are central to the livelihood of citizens. When such occurs, we minimise the potential for individuals to exploit institutional power and knowledge for selfish interest at the detriment of public life and order. It is every government’s responsibility to ensure that public institutions are relevant, vibrant and capable of growing to self-sustain and maximize the delivery mechanisms to the nation.
*Molaodi teaches Public Administration at the University of Botswana
