A week ago there were some movements of senior public officers, as it has been a common practice from way back in time. Ordinarily this known and accepted practice in public services should pass as just part of the nature and operations of public services across the world. I want to reflect on this particular movement of public officers for a few reasons. However, before I get into those reasons and my take on issues involved, I would like to acknowledge that I fully understand the responsibilities, authority and discretionary powers of the appointing authority, as vested by the necessary legal instruments. I also have nothing against the inherent or implied intent of such instruments, for I think they serve a positive purpose when exercised in the context of those intents.
This particular redeployment of senior officers comes after one such exercise that was done a year or so back in which amongst those that were redeployed was the deputy commissioner of Botswana Police Services, who I gather is now serving in one of the country’s diplomatic missions. At the time there were some dissenting voices around the logic and wisdom of transferring a senior police officer, who some saw as a potential replacement for the current commissioner, if he were to retire as was expected then. This has also come to bear again from the current redeployment as the other deputy commissioner who at the time was seen and assumed by some to be the most senior and likely successor to the current commissioner has also been shifted to responsibilities outside the police service. I want to believe that if we were to ask the appointing authority of the wisdom to effect these types of redeployments, we would be told that it’s done in the interest of the public service at large, and this is where I have issues with this exercise.
Firstly, anytime these redeployments are made, one assumes and the general public is to believe that they are meant to enhance productivity in the public service and by extension improve the capacity of the public service to effectively deliver its responsibilities to the citizens. Any movement of officers, particularly of the senior calibre as was involved in this particular case, must be seen to be truly in the interest of improved public service delivery. Secondly, redeployment of senior public officers carries with it other critical implications on the ability and professional development of the concerned individuals and what they bring to their new homes of work. Amongst the lot that were redeployed are professionals who had over twenty years of experience and expertise in particular ministries or departments, and they most probably are within reach of their retirement packages. It does not make much sense for me to transfer such type to completely new territories, for I believe unless there are very compelling reasons to do so, this is a recipe for unproductive practices as they, at this later stage of their career and age, have to learn and adjust to the new environment outside their professional competencies. Related to the above is the inherent expectation that at the senior positions they hold, these public offers are expected to provide guidance and groom young professionals in their respective ministries/departments. These responsibilities together with their supervisory roles require not just administrative experience but a detailed understanding of the different professions in their new work places.
I am not so sure that this will be the case in some of this redeployed officers and that can in itself become a source of discomfort for the up and coming officers, especially if they begin to sense and believe that as professionals they are being led by people who know very little about the profession itself. I am sure we all know what will happen when this becomes a culture in the public service. Besides the too obvious effects on poor service delivery and unprofessional conducts of sorts, citizens will eventually lose trust on the government.
Thirdly, when you see senior officers being redeployed to perform duties and responsibilities at junior levels, then you begin to wonder as to the wisdom and rational for such. I was particularly shocked to see a permanent secretary being redeployed to go and perform the duties of a director. The conventional hierarchical arrangement of organizations speaks to a lot of things that makes it very wrong, illogical and sometimes even nonsensical when you toss officers amongst offices disregarding their levels in the structure. I thought its common knowledge that the higher you go the more responsibilities, power, authority and discretionary latitude you hold, let alone the associated remuneration that must match those functions. It would appear to me that only exceptional circumstances would justify the redeployment of one from a permanent secretary level to a junior position of a director, in a department that had for a long time been more or less inactive. In other countries when this occurs it’s usually for reasons that are either punitive on account of one’s conduct or worse still it could be purely personal issues of settling old scores.
I am mentioning this last reason because this particular case involves the same individual, who at some point was retired from the public service on seemingly unreasonable grounds and only to be recalled back later. Surely, there must be something cooking there, I just cannot accept the logic of it and any rationalization of this particular one would not convince me. What are the exact reasons? Your guess is as good as mine.
Lastly, I worry about these types of redeployments because, besides shifting personnel from positions where they can excel and maximize their productive capacities, it also has the potential to stifle growth in those ministries/departments that have these new, seemingly experienced, but at the same time green horns in their new territory. One of the known effects of these types of redeployment is discontent and general lack of trust in the system which eventually translates to all known ill effects such as corruption, poor service delivery, unethical conduct and a general lack of integrity in the public service. I just hope some of these redeployments are not to punish and even settle old scores; it would be indeed unfortunate if that is the case.
Molaodi teaches Public Administration at the University of Botswana
