Making government more responsive
Editorial
Since his elevation, President Bharrat Jagdeo has made a point of stating his intention to pursue a new style of management and to slash the red tape that holds back the machinery of government. He has also pursued a populist style of government by taking his Cabinet out of Georgetown to Berbice, Linden and Essequibo. It is evident that he wants to be seen as a President who listens seriously to the problems of the ordinary citizen and takes action to remedy these. The naming of a host of new permanent secretaries and the installation of one at the Office of the President are also attempts to improve the performance and output of central government and its related agencies. But how in essence can this be achieved? The interface between the ordinary citizen and central government ministries and agencies is one that pits the powerless against a lumbering bureaucracy that is often unresponsive and unaccountable. On a daily basis, the letters in this newspaper reflect the frustration of these mismatched encounters. Often the writers are driven to send their letters to what they see as the forum of last resort having exhausted all other means of relief, be it at the ministries or appeals to higher government officials. Their grouses include issues such as poor service, unattended complaints, corruption, heavy-handedness by government officials, late payment of salaries, favouritism, neglect and poor access to decision makers. It is a state of affairs that plagues not only the public sector but is well known in the private sector and is particularly chronic in local government. If President Jagdeo is serious about raising the level of performance of his ministries and top government officers he must even up the scales by providing citizens with fora in which the same complaints that end up in the newspapers could be ventilated and seriously pursued. He must also reinvigorate those institutional mechanisms that already exist to deal with problems of this type. First, the President should consider the possibility of institutionalising complaints desks at all ministries, departments and agencies where aggrieved citizens can seek redress. Too often, public officers get away with unacceptable behaviour and service because they believe that they are not accountable and that citizens have no medium to pursue complaints. Second, critical agencies such as the Ombudsman's office could be endowed with the resources to perform the important roles that were envisaged for them. The Ombudsman's office is but a shadow of what it should be. In other jurisdictions, the Ombudsman's office is well equipped to undertake investigations of complaints by citizens against government departments and its rulings have to be complied with expeditiously. Here, the Ombudsman's office is not accorded the level of respect or co-operation it deserves and its enquiries and rulings have often been ignored by agencies that believe that they are beyond its authority. Other watchdogs such as the Office of the Auditor General and the Police Complaints Authority have not been given the level of support they deserve by this government. It is left to be seen what type of impact the Integrity Commission will have. Third, President Jagdeo should consider the appointment of a high ranking official whose sole task would be to address intractable problems that result from engagements between citizens and government agencies. That official would also be able to advise on systemic problems in the various tiers of government and to recommend changes. Taking government to the people and making it responsive requires substantially more than convening Cabinet meetings outside of Georgetown.
|