Opinion

Tenure Policy Restoration In The Federal Service: Matters Arising

Published

1 year ago

February 2, 2022

NewTimes

Professionals In Government: Issues In Navigating The Policy Space In Nigeria

Tunji Olaopa

The news has now circulated sufficiently now that the Federal Government has reversed itself on the crucial issue of tenure policy in the federal civil service. The FG deserves an applause on this reversal because it implies that it has seen the light with regard to the significance of the policy in getting the civil service system back on its feet. It takes not just a credible reform policy to achieve the transformation of the civil service but also the political will to get that policy implemented and functional. And the tenure policy is just one such policy that has the potential to salvage the credibility and performance profile of the service.

The worry, however, and the reason for this intervention, has to do with the long gestation period that it takes for the service and the government to wade through the mechanics of implementation and evaluation. In most cases, implementation does not even happen, or at best, haphazard or far-between. There is therefore the constant need for expert intervention that fills the knowledge and advocacy gap in the hope that the government and other stakeholders can be stimulated into the salvation that Nigeria needs.

On the 18th of August, 2011, the Committee on the Restructuring and Rationalization of Federal Government Parastatals, Commissions and Agencies was put in place by the Federal Government, and headed by the former head of the civil service of the federation, Mr. Stephen Oronsaye. The burden that led to the constitution of the committee is the enormous cost of governance that drains the precious scarce resources of running government business and achieving infrastructural development and efficient service delivery for Nigerians. The committee submitted its report on 16th April, 2012. And then the report went through an unfortunate white paper analysis in 2014. And that was where the policy was stopped dead on its track. The political will to get it optimally implemented fizzled out.

READ ALSO: Adedotun Phillips And The Unfinished Business Of Reform In Nigeria

The tenure policy is a significant reform policy targeted at restoring the eroded confidence in the capacity readiness of the service to achieve efficient service delivery to Nigerians. Two reasons are fundamental to the significance of the policy. The first has to do with the intent to arrest the declining professionalism of the service due to the blatant politicization of the human resource functions of hiring, transfers and promotion. Stagnation in the system has been induced largely by two correlated determinants—the incessant lateral transfers and promotional blocks. The dubious promotional practice at the state civil services enables young, inexperienced and, at best, half-baked officers, into the federal civil service who then become directors and permanent secretaries at a tender age that allows them to hold such offices forever without retiring. This dislocates the chances of the core federal professionally inducted officers who had progressed steadily from GL. 8 from reaching the peak of their career. The inevitable consequence of this practices is that these genuine officers are essentially demotivated in a way that undermines performance and productivity.

The administrative leadership has been insensitive to this anomaly for far too long as many of those in that strategic policy making cadre are beneficiaries of the wanton politicization of service.

The second reason for the tenure policy has to do with urgent need to address the need for the institutionalization of performance management and accountability in the civil service. The Nigerian public service operates the traditional “I-am-directed” Weberian administrative system which most states across the globe have jettisoned for healthier and most efficient managerial alternatives. Since the 1974 Udoji reform commission, Nigeria has been struggling with instituting a performance management system backstopped by a mix of project management practices, professionalized HR function and meritocratic procedures as the basis for administrative leadership pipelining and career progression. The tenure policy was meant to be Nigeria’s acceptance of Peter Drucker’s axiomatic rule that what is not measured cannot be managed.

READ ALSO: Alex Gboyega And The Discourse On Local Governance In Nigeria

One plausible reason for the reversal of the government’s stance on the tenure policy is most definitely the national fiscal crisis occasioned by the increasing cost of governance burden. This is due to the multiplicity of redundancies that permeate both the state and federal civil services, as well as the overloading of the workforce that allows so many people to be doing so little. And from the press release, the HCSF is also obviously worried about the state of capacity readiness of the service to deliver on significant mandate, especially that of service delivery to Nigerians. For her, what obtains now is not commensurate with what is expected. And something needed to be done. Of course, I am one of those who can truly appreciate the unenviable position of the HCSF. She supervises a system that has all the potential to become a world class institution. However, and on a positive note, this reversal provides the system with the opportunity to make the first most significant move in tackling the cost of governance problematic that will set the service on the path of instituting performance management metrics.

Thus, reversing the tenure policy comes with some fundamental reform moves we must assume the federal government is ready to make or has already initiated. One recurring question that must underlie the government’s willingness to step into the breach of the reform effort is: Can civil service by itself possibly deliver on the needed reforms to engineer the deep-seated systemic shifts to sustainably achieve efficient service delivery? An affirmative answer is precluded by the bureaucratic culture of any public service across the world. Britain’s response to that question, through PM Margaret Thatcher, was the enlisting of the leadership of the Chairman and CEO of Marks and Spencer, Lord Derek George Rayner, Baron Rayner. One fundamental first step for Nigeria in resolving that question is the need to empower one or a set of central agencies—Ministry of National Planning, Office of the Secretary to the Government of Nigeria (OSGF), Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF), Bureau of Public Service Reform (BPSR), or any other—that will be saddled with the task of providing technical expertise and back-up on behalf of the Presidency.

And the objective for these central agencies will be to get, first, the ministers and their permanent secretaries sign on to a performance agreement or performance contract determined by a carefully negotiated key performance indicators linked to the SERVICOM-type social compact and service charter signed with stakeholders. This will then cascade down to the MDAs that must themselves sign up to ministerial scorecards of performance. This makes it mandatory, as a matter of course, for the MDAs to articulate their sector strategies activated by an annual business planning process and performance budgeting matrix. In other words, backend managerial software such as activity-based costed budgets and accrual accounting have already revised the known incremental line-item budgeting and accounting reporting format that the MDAs can work with.

READ ALSO: Rebuilding Nigeria’s Broken Walls: From Emotional Patriotism To Nehemiah Complex

The challenge facng the agencies monitoring the reforms, however, would be the need to guard against a purely technicist understanding of reform which suggest, falsely, that the public service can be insulated against larger governance reengineering that frees up the service delivery spaces across the whole national economy. A very instructive case is that of post-World War II Japan. Japan first understood that the government by itself cannot facilitate economic recovery.

Japan’s strategy of capacitation was three-pronged: strict regulation bordering on protectionism, trade expansion and the stimulation of private sector growth. For instance, Japan deployed the Keiretsu principle that brought the organized private sector—manufacturers, suppliers, bankers, industries and so on—around a unique dynamic of economic cooperation, further strengthened by the introduction of experts with deep understanding of the relationship between economic growth, development, productivity and performance.

Next on line, I see the urgent need for the remodeling of a new framework of OHCSF-FCSC-MDAs engagement and partnership that aligns with emerging performance management model that Nigeria is installing. This is important because the reform of the public service is anchored also on a reformed HR function that connects performance to productivity. And the responsibility will be to first recognize and deal with the generalist template of the traditional HR function that underlies the old personnel administration system that stands diametrically opposed to the new and emerging performance managerial culture.

With the latter system, the Nigerian public service can activate a decentralised HR function that involves line managers more in the recruitment, performance assessment and capacity development of their staff. As an irreducible minimum, this makes it possible to tap into a meritocratic dynamic that not only addresses and manages diversity through the federal character policy, but also encourages career progression. This meritocracy can only be achieved through a re-professionalization process which brings the public servants back in tune with both the essence of her profession as well as capacitating her with competences and skills suitable for managing a twenty-first century public service.

When all is said and done, the reversal of the tenure policy by the federal government puts Nigeria once again at the threshold of a possible transformation of her public service system. This transformation has been long overdue, especially since 1974 when the Udoji Commission provided the first significant opportunity for tapping into the managerial revolution. We missed that great opportunity then. It is my fervent hope that we can carry this moment forward.

.Olaopa is a retired Federal Permanent Secretary , and Professor of public administration, National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, Jos . tolaopa2003@gmail.com

Read more authentic news on our social media platforms

Opinion

The 2023 Elections And The Newness Of Nigeria

Published

9 hours ago

March 22, 2023

NewTimes

Dr. Hope Nwawolo

By Hope Nwawolo

Despite the hues and cries that greeted the results of the 2023 elections, what if the court’s pendulum stays or swings otherwise in the expected litigations?

What will it teach our inquisitive young children?

What will it do to the hopes and dreams of the youths?

What will it do to the mind set of those in diaspora, waiting and hoping to return?

How will it affect our heroes still alive and yearning for the good old times?

One basic fact is that no matter where the pendulum swings, something new has started in the political sphere of Nigeria. And because it was unexpected, it has become almost impossible to strangulate it.

In every competition, there is an expectation that the best man will win. That may not always be in politics, particularly, in Nigeria…where the winner may not be the best man or even the better man. And when it is said that politics is a game of numbers, sometimes, the actual numbers may not be visible to determine the end result. It becomes a case of the more you look the less you see; until interpreted by respected learned men with high integrity.

Politics, they say is a dirty game, where money speaks and promises made are broken without an iota of guilt. Where the gullible minds of the masses are deceived, with as little as a box of indomie. Where some vibrant but jobless youths are brainwashed to risk their lives to snatch ballot boxes for the politicians who do not know them beyond giving them stipends through some third parties. Where market women are forced to come out for rallies and campaigns because they cannot afford the fine that will be imposed on them if they failed to participate. They also do not want the harassment of the market leaders.

In politics, fear is palpable in the air, before, during and after elections. The 2023 elections recently carried out, depicted these more than expected in both the politicians and electorate. What started like the usual political pattern took a drastic turn about nine months to the first elections and though it was said to be only a social media affair, it got everyone sitting upright and tightening his seat belt, particularly after the first elections.

Now, there is a generational shift, a new awakening, a new dawn and a new political birth, waiting to happen. To wherever the pendulum turns; where the court stands, it will make a turnaround in Nigeria. It may be turbulent at the beginning, it may be emotionally draining and psychologically traumatizing, but it will point to light at the end of the tunnel.

There is a new hope backed by a high spirit of determination. An unexplainable faith in many people for that newness of existence and purpose. An unprecedented emotional and psychological strength in the youths not to give up on their dreams. An unquenchable desire to keep praying. Soon a newness will break forth to calm all nerves and dry all tears.

A newness that will permeate conflicts and hatred,

A newness that will dissipate unnecessary anger,

A newness that will usher in unquestionable and transparent political systems in future elections,

A newness of freedom to choose a candidate without coercion or molestation

A newness of jubilation after the announcement of election results.

This is the new Nigeria that is awaiting delivery…

Nwawolo, PhD, writes from Lagos.

hopenwawolo@yahoo.com

Opinion

Overcoming Policy Execution Trap As Nigeria’s Development Challenge

Published

1 day ago

March 21, 2023

NewTimes

Prof. Tunji Olaopa

By Tunji Olaopa

If I am asked to give a succinct and apt summary of the entire challenge faced by the Nigerian state in terms of her policy architecture and development management, in spite of contestation in the development literature, I will not hesitate in stating clearly and unambiguously that it is the challenge of policy implementation; the whole dynamics of getting things done. By elimination, the implication is that the challenge cannot be located as that of the dearth of development ideas, insights, models and paradigms. Right from her independence, Nigeria has been inundated with several ideas, both local and global, about development policy and frameworks. And yet, policy outcomes keep getting bogged down in the murky waters of political shenanigans. This means that the new administration of Bola Ahmed Tinubu has its challenge mapped out, in red, for it.

There is no shying away from this postcolonial predicament that has limited and kept limiting Nigeria’s capacity to honour the terms of her social contract with Nigerians. Hence, the Tinubu government will soon be inundated with the impatient agitations of Nigerians for a quick and tangible fix that will address their sufferings. And they are justified since they have not been given any real deal for the past sixty-three years of sovereign independence. And the new administration is obligated because that is the reason for seeking office in the first place.

Prof. Olaopa’s new book on public policy and development challenges

How then can we begin to understand this policy execution challenge? It is simple: how can an administration in Nigeria transition from governance vision and policy intention to policy outcomes that elevate and transform the quality of life of its citizens? Failure to understand and give critical and political attention to this question lies at the heart of the governance failures of successive Nigerian administrations. The new Tinubu administration cannot afford such a glaring mistake. And so, a fundamental case must be made out of the question of how policy intentions get circumscribed in the dynamics of policy execution that occasions policy failures in past administrations.

Modern states all across the world are distinguished by the traditional four functions they discharge as part of their administrative responsibilities—security i.e. securing the sovereign territory against lawlessness, policy formulation and implementation, governance regulation and service delivery.The capacity to perform each and all of these functions very well within an integrated framework in the governance context is what delivers the dividends of democratic governance to the citizens, and it enhances the state’s competitive and human development rating in global reckoning. With these functions, we have the metrics to differentiate between high-performing states like China, India, the United States,Botswana, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirate, Germany, Rwanda and the Asian Tigers (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea), and low- or even under-performing countries like Nigeria that is still cluelessly stuck within a dysfunctional vicious cycle within her arrested development.

From the perspective of governance, there must be something these states are getting right in the connection between leadership, politics, and policy articulation. For instance, there is a trajectory of relationship that links elite bargains to development bargains. In other words, development is a
function of elite nationalism and the extent to which the political class of a state can commit elite suicide and gamble on development on behalf of the people they are leading. In Nigeria, low
manifestation of elite nationalism has made it really difficult for the political class to set aside their personal and egoistic class interests in ways that enable them to clearly and ideologically discern and navigate the deadly developmental landmines strewn all over our governance landscape by the
neoliberal implication of ideological apparatuses and frameworks to which Nigeria is beholden. And here, the factor of development gamble of the Asian Tigers’ elites comes into bold relief. From within the ideological ambit of the developmental state, the leadership of the Asian Tigers were able to define a policy space that consciously and critically weighed the benefits and shortfalls of external influences, especially the type that came from the World Bank, IMF and the other cohorts of the neoliberal policy dynamics. Their developmental circumspection paid off!

Since we cannot argue that Nigeria has been stumped by the lack of vision documents, development plans and blueprints, or even policy expertise, the locus of the new administration’s focus must be directed at the possibility of mustering the political will to undermine the mystified Nigerian Factor, and face the global neoliberal consensus in order to begin the crafting of an enabling policy architecture to drive development. And to achieve this translates to creating the delicate balance between ‘doing the right things’ (a function of decision making quotient) and ‘doing it right’(project and change management effectiveness), and overcoming the various political, cultural, structural and systemic constraints that trapped past well-meaning policies and intentions of Nigerian leaders in the dynamics of implementation.

There is first the conspiracy of elitist interest that ensures there is a poor resource allocation that focuses on elite bargain than development calculations and taking care of the national interest. Other constraints follow: (a) the disconnect between policy design and implementation due to weak implementation planning, risk assessment and incompetent change management strategies; (b) unstable and poorly managed macroeconomic policies; (c) policy and project discontinuity; (d) public service low capability readiness; (e) political interference; and finally (f) deep-seated political and bureaucratic corruption. In essence, development has failed not because Nigeria lacks the blueprint or paradigms to make it happen, but due to the dynamics of the politics that the political elite plays with Nigeria’s development potential.

Let me outline what we can regard as the “politics of policy implementation” that Nigeria has played for many years, a politics the new administration must take into serious consideration if it
does not want to fall into the category of failed administration right before it commences. This politics throws Nigeria’s development and policy non-performance right into the frame of the 2005 World Bank review findings about policy and development projects in Africa. According to the finding, 29% of development projects ever get completed, 45% of on-going projects are rated as satisfactory, while 26% of such projects invariably get cancelled. Such a review can never backstop a solid development project of a developmental state.

The politics of policy implementation in
Nigeria is founded on the following assumptions and practices. One: there is that dangerous presumption, that the new administration must resist, that once policies and development plan are designed, they are automatically implemented by the public service. And such a presumption is against the background of a scant investment in implementation analysis and planning, as well as the failure to facilitate the capability review, determine public
administration system’s capability readiness, and strengthening of the MDAs as the powerhouse of government administrative functionality. The MDAs, that is, are not working according to any
specific theories or praxis of change that can guide the functional integration of blueprints or paradigms. This kind of policy inattention draws attention to the policy contradiction: launching a
national development plan and strategy that are not implementation- ready in terms of adequate capability review of the MDAs integral to ensuring implementation success. Two: this
presumption is compounded by the uncritical reliance of past governments on policy experts and consulting firms who are tasked with designing high-end policies that are then dumped on MDAs whose capability reviews and implementation readiness have been neglected in the first place. The
extroversion of the policy design is then compromised by poor functional integration. The truth is that most of these consulting firms lack the appropriate deep content and solution frameworks that are in tandem with the context of policy dysfunction they are supposed to work with. Three: governance policy or project are hardly subjected to feasibility test determined in terms of scope and expectation that are captured by their framework of time, cost and risk assessments before
they are pushed into implementation. This makes it very difficult to benchmark funding projections for these policies and projects against revenue estimations, as well as facilitating in-built flexibilities that enable the policies and projects to adjust to volatilities and contingencies.

All the issues raised above constitute binding constraint that will undermine any governance possibilities the new administration requires to make a success of democratic governance. Undermining the binding constraints demands returning to the fundamentals. The first and most significant is that the new administration needs to interrogate the framework of how government business is currently being conducted. Governance successes are necessarily a function of how government business engages the complexities of the policy design and execution processes within a results-oriented frame. And that entails undermining the structural gaps between policy objectives, development strategies and policy outcomes. This demands second, setting the public service on a performance curve with the institution of a performance management system. This means that the public service must, for example, unfailingly now deploy KPI-based metrics to replace the cumbersome annual performance evaluation report (APER). And at the backend, it becomes imperative to have a monitoring and evaluation system supported by databases that enable staff and program continuous assessment, human resource development rooted in iterativep performance gap identification, supervisors-staff dialogue and multisource feedback mechanismsf for overall national development policy tracking and reporting.

The governance mantra must be on getting the balance between doing the right things and doing it right. And this cannot be achieved through the wanton multiplication or even duplication of
governance plans, programs and blueprints. What is needed is sequencing the blueprints into a coherent and feasible implementation programme, with the right amount of political will behind it. This gives the success of democratic governance a 95% chance of succeeding. The new administration needs that fighting chance!

. Olaopa, a retired Federal Permanent Secretary, and Professor of Public Administration .
tolaopa2003@gmail.com

Opinion

Rigged Elections And The Moral Burden Of Illegitimacy

Published

2 days ago

March 20, 2023

NewTimes

Prof. Hope Eghagha

By Hope O’Rukevbe Eghagha

Adamu: A man who rigs his way to power carries a moral burden!

Orezime: A moral what?

Adamu: You heard me, didn’t you?

Orezime: I’m not sure I heard you right. Moral what you said?

Adamu: A moral burden, I said!

Orezime: Hahahahahahaha! You make me laugh! Are you from the moon?

Gani: Or Mars?

Emeka: In which country? In Nigeria? That principle does not apply in Nigeria! There is no moral burden on anybody in this country! The election which produced Bubu in 2015 was rigged. Where are the two million voters from Kano State who voted in 2015? Was an INEC official not burnt alive after that election? The one which brought Obj to power was also rigged by the forces which wanted him to ease the tension of the Abiola tragedy on the Yoruba people. Yet those men had the temerity to preach against corruption!

Orezime: The international community winked at the whole exercise.

Gani: Yes! That’s why those two could only preach; they couldn’t really act decisively. A moral burden? They spoke from both sides of their mouths on the issue of corruption. The late President Yar Adua confessed that the election which produced him was compromised. An honest man, he didn’t live long enough to right the wrong of the period!

Orezime: That’s why I laughed when Adamu talked about a moral burden arising from rigged elections.

Bankole: In the ideal world, any power that is stolen and acquired through a dubious means imposes a moral burden on the power holder. No matter what the person does, that power remains stained.

Orezime: What does that amount to in our country? Even the brigands who shot their way to power in the notorious days of military misadventure in Nigeria soon became legitimate.

Emeka: You are going too far in our history. See what happened in Lagos State in the governorship elections of March 18. Ethnic jingoists went about preaching hatred against Igbo people and warned them against coming out to exercise their constitutional rights. Security officials looked the other way when ballot boxes were snatched in broad daylight in places where the opposition was leading.

Gani: A serving state governor personally went about snatching ballot boxes and threatened to shoot whoever got in his way. The same governor declared somebody wanted without recourse to the Inspector General of Police! He worked against the party on which platform he won the seat to spite the party hierarchy!

Adamu: And to think that this is the President-elect’s state. He kept mute through the horrendous attacks on Igbo people in Lagos State just the way the incumbent president has looked the other way when herdsmen went on the loose!

Bankole: Rigged elections are so familiar yet notorious in our land. It was the main trigger to the crisis in the Western Region in the First Republic because the people reacted when they saw a rape of their rights and wishes! It soon snowballed into a conflagration that consumed the nation in the late 1960s. Already, the youths are talking about a protest in the ENDSARSNOW# manner. I hope it doesn’t result in disaster. We have lost too many lives already!

Orezime: What I fear is the rise of ethnic profiling in a supposedly democratic society. To be sure, Governor Sanwo-Olu and the party hierarchy did not single out any ethnic group for verbal attacks. They even courted them. Yet they didn’t caution their followers to stop the degeneration into ethnic hatred. It is a dangerous curve what is happening in Lagos. I don’t subscribe to the Lagos is no man’s land nonsense which some misguided fellows are spewing, but threatening anybody not to vote their candidate is a new low! Can a Sanwo-Olu victory be said to be legitimate if a significant percentage of the electorate is disenfranchised?

Emeka: Good question. They did not stop there. They rolled out the culturally dreaded Oro rituals on election night. Come on! Who is fooling who? The Oro festival was designed to drive fear into non-Yoruba in Lagos. In the 21st Century?

Gani: I am sure the reports from election observers will be damning.

Bankole: I don’t care about those biased observers.

Adamu: Where are we headed in this country?

Orezime: We are on the road to Kigali!

Bankole: May we not travel that route!

Orezime: It’s a good prayer. But what are we doing to avoid the descent into anarchy? Nothing. Those monkeys are simply interested in acquiring power.

Gani: The Obedient Movement seems to have lost steam once it was misbranded as an ethnic agenda to grab power at the national level. Peter Obi needs to tread carefully so he doesn’t become another June 12! Some people are egging him on to challenge INEC through protests.

Orezime: If he decides to lead a protest, it would be within his constitutional right to do so, especially as INEC is stalling on the issue of inspecting elections materials despite an order from the courts. Peaceful protests are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Adamu: No one can be sure whether a peaceful protest will remain peaceful after it starts. That’s the experience the ENDSARS people had.

Gani: It’s not enough to stop people from taking to the streets. Protests are fundamental to democracy.

Adamu: We do not want dead heroes! Mark my words.

Bankole: That’s ominous!

Emeka: It means nothing. Nigeria must change. We cannot go on like this forever! Things are just going down. No cash. No fuel. No power supply. No security. No nothing. Peter Obi gave a glimmer of hope. Now that has been dashed to the ground.

Adamu: Rigging will remain a moral burden each time our President-elect travels outside the country, each time he meets foreign observers, especially those ones who have a dossier on him. History will also judge him and assess how he came to power. This applies to all the states as well where some politicians have turned themselves into demigods and have compromised poor INEC officials with mouthwatering sums. This is not how to build a democracy. The votes must be counted and must count. Seventeen people have their lives during the governorship and House of Assembly elections. We are supposed to count ballot papers, not bodies. Sad!

Bankole: The moral burden of rigged elections is on all of us. Without our connivance there would be no rigging. We can only hope that this will end some day!

Emeka: Tough luck!