THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLITICIANS AND PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS. Sovereignty is a political concept. One of its interpretations says that no matter where the law or organization says sovereignty lies it may actually lie elsewhere. Sovereignty can also be described as where the final say in anything lies. Similarly, a CEO has the final say in any organization barring a few exceptions determined by a board of directors. In a modified form the same exists in PR. But what does reality say about this? The Minister exerts control through various means although he is legally not empowered to and his wishes and orders can be ignored. According to the Rules of Business of the Federal Secretariat, “attached departments” such as PR are controlled by a Secretary of a Ministry (or with slight variations depending on the organization concerned) : “The Secretary shall be the official head of the Division and shall be responsible for its efficient administration and discipline and for the proper conduct of business assigned to the Division under rule 3 (3) and for the due execution of sanctioned policy” The rules specify that policy is controlled by a minister and the Secretary or those appointed under his control are responsible for the implementation of that policy. The linkage is simple. The Secretary (or any other officer nominated under a systematic framework of authority) is responsible to the PM. The Minister assists the PM in the formulation of policy. The Secretary and many officers of lower rank are appointed and approved for by the PM. Furthermore, if the minister and secretary differ with each other, the PM becomes the arbiter. In PR this doesn’t happen. The prime reason is the de-facto centre of authority and power i.e. the minister. The crux of his de facto power derives from his capability to transfer and post officers of his own liking surpassing the authority and power of the Secretary or any other officer. This he does not and cannot do in writing. He does it verbally as there is no resistance to his authority as he can change or bulldoze any executive. This has happened frequently in the past. The previous minster removed three secretaries in a year and removed two General Managers. These removals were on the basis of personal likes and dislikes and differences over government contracts, land issues etc. What consequences does this have for a public sector enterprise? It means it is left to the mercy of a person who has little skills, knowledge, qualifications and experience, and who interferes to a level of his own liking though he is not permitted by the system of working of the government to do so. By looking at the sheer number of corruption scandals, mismanaged deals, steps taken against the general principles of government rules and process, it is clear that minsters have failed miserably in performing their duties properly and this de facto system of working has failed and brought us to where we are. This is a core governance issue pertaining not only to PR but to other government organizations as well. Nonetheless, it damages PR as well and being a business enterprise it prevents PR from adaptation in a competitive and cut throat business environment.
Posted on: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 05:46:41 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015