How we can achieve coherence in government

Four years since the government launched the streamlining agenda, 53 out of 157 agencies have been pruned, albeit at a slow pace. Public scrutiny into the costs and benefits of this re-organisation has brewed varying levels of skepticism.

 Earlier this year, Parliament attempted to freeze the process arguing that the government had not adequately prepared for ‘business continuity’ in the affected institutions. Besides, analysts argued that a rushed adjustment would dent Uganda’s image in the global investment market owing to loss of investor confidence. This would trigger a direct impact on productivity.

The merger of institutions, others argued, would inevitably spark off staff redundancy, piling up on the already crushing burden of unemployment.

It is perceived that the quest for a fine line between the political and technical arms of government ministries was the overriding impulse of establishing departments and agencies.

Whereas acknowledgment abounds that agencies as purely technical wings delivered more effective performance, this rating is gradually waning as concerns of unnecessary bureaucracy and corruption grow louder. There has also been rising distress about substantial discrepancies between agencies and their line ministries in government funding for project implementation and staff compensation, among others.

The apprehension notwithstanding, the streamlining process presents an opportunity for the government to knit a harmonised design to monitor the performance of public service delivery. Synergies among government agencies would become more apparent with clear segregation of competencies.

Weaknesses, on the other hand, would breed a culture of complementarity in pursuit of efficiency rather than unhealthy competition. The systematisation of the public sector lends its voice to the repetitive calls for harmonisation of remuneration packages for technical and political staff in ministries, departments, and agencies. This would certainly stand out as a welcome respite for the unsavory interpersonal relations that shatter employees’ morale and output.

As rationalisation shapes up, it is imperative to have the process aligned with the goal of the Parish Development Model as a grassroots livelihood programme. The fine thread that entwines various agencies to deliver on such interventions for the ordinary citizen is beyond debate. Thinking rural prosperity and transformation, pillar seven (7) on governance and administration of the Parish Development Model identifies itself as an enviable beneficiary of the rationalisation impetus. Evidently, through a harmonised approach to implementing government programmes, we will be able to redeem any glaring deficits of accountability for cost-effective service delivery.

The ongoing cleanup of structures opens a window for us to consider regularisation as an anchor for the operations of all arms of government and its working relationship with the private sector. Rationalisation of public sector institutions is an opportunity for us, the citizens of Uganda, to raise the productivity and efficiency of public service delivery. As restructuring transcends the central government to the local government and unfolds to the private sector, we can gloat in perching on the twig of public value rather than mere size.

Rationalisation alone may not wholly deliver the intended consequences.  Multi-skilling of government employees to raise their operational efficiency is key.  Committing to a ‘whole of government’ approach is important.  We need the humility to appreciate that tackling development challenges transcends a single Ministry, Department or Agency (MDA).  

Similarly, embracing a digitised government is inevitable.  We should not forget the importance of research and deploying evidence-based or data-centric decision making – at all times.  

The writer is a Commissioner, Uganda Human Rights Commission