The prime minister has finally taken belated action on the Petrojam problem. I often wonder why such an obviously bright man consistently allows his critics to take several pounds of flesh out of him before he does what he clearly needs to do. The energy portfolio has been shifted to his office. I expect he will explain how this will make things better.
But this situation has created another opportunity to discuss one of the big problems facing this country. Why do we continue to use members of parliament (MPs) to head ministries? Is this the reason why their constituents elected them?
Shouldn’t we, instead, be selecting the best person for the job, anywhere that person can be found? I mention this because I think it is time we stop placing the burden of ministerial responsibility on the slim shoulders of MPs. It demands that they engage in the delicate but complex act of balancing quality, cost, technology, humanity and criticism.
And – much as they want these jobs – it is unfair to all concerned to put them in these positions because few, if any, are equipped with the range of skills to perform these tasks with any degree of competence. They then lay themselves open to idlers to revel in their favourite ‘all politician a teef’ stories.
Apart from the hiring and award of contracts concerns – which should not be the responsibility of ministers – there are some criticisms for failure to perform in some highly technical and specialised areas. Which MP is qualified to perform in this area? Which MP can go to Three Miles and comment or question – or even understand – what is taking place there? Why do we keep fooling ourselves that they are ‘in charge’?
I have graduated from tertiary institutions on four separate occasions. When this Petrojam matter broke, I took another look at the syllabus for my MBA degree.
specialisation
None of my classmates who should even consider entering the executive offices of that company are looking for work. Why? Because this is the age of specialisation.
The minister would need to have at least two postgraduate degrees in matters concerning that industry to respond intelligently to the demands of that agency. And so should the permanent secretary and all board members. If it will help to explain my position, let me point out that the Iowa State University is just one American university that offers a doctoral degree for meat cutting.
There is no inventory of occupational needs that helps citizens to know what skill will be needed and when. So we are flooded with lawyers who can’t find work.
What we are now doing is scouting for ‘bright young talent’ and trying to turn them into MPs so they can fill Cabinet positions. This has not always worked.
Further afield, in the diaspora, there is a dizzying array of talent. But there is an equally dizzying array of fool-fool rules that make them think twice about making their skills available.
May I suggest that permanent secretaries and board members be persons who have relevant industry experience, strategic and problem-solving skills, strong interpersonal and negotiating skills, and expertise in legislation or the law.
Let us send MPs back to their constituents to work with them and advance their welfare. This is not being done. And as a matter of urgency, let us start choosing competent technocrats for ministerial positions. Equally urgent is the need to jettison the insularity and illiberality that occupy such a large space in our minds.
Glenn Tucker is an educator and sociologist.