Managing a country is a complex task as there are public services that are essential to its survival but are not a natural fit for the private sector.
Public health and safety, water and sewerage, border control and national security, the rule of law, and a justice system are examples of areas that are the natural province of the state.
Historically, these tasks fell to kings, emperors, and their courts, the officials who made things happen. Rulers always need administrators and taxes to manage public services if civil disorder is to be avoided. A practical approach to the task of governance had to be invented.
Historical records suggest the Han dynasty in China around 207 BCE had the most developed idea of a civil service using educated ministers and administrators. Finding the best people to manage is always a difficult task. By 600 CE, the Qing dynasty in China solved this issue by developing a civil service examination system based on meritocracy.
By comparison, England’s civil service came much later to the task of managing its empire. The foundations of the British Civil Service lie in the private sector-oriented East India Company, where the term “civil servant” was invented.
The appointment of General Charles Cornwallis in 1785 is important as he was instrumental in enacting administrative and legal reforms that fundamentally altered civil administration and land practices in India.
He is credited with “… setting the standards for the services courts and revenue collection that remained unaltered almost to the end of the British era.” (Dupont 2001). Perhaps his failure to defeat the rebellious American colonies motivated a superior performance in India.
The East India Company was so powerful and its activities so governmental that its operations became intertwined with the Government in England. This led to increasing calls for reform and led to the establishment of a committee led by Lords Northcote and Trevelyan to review the position.
A report was published in 1854 entitled “Report of the Organisation of the Permanent Civil Service, together with a letter from the Rev B Jowett.”
It is credited as the founding document of the British Civil Service.
The report was critical of the existing departments for allowing patronage to influence appointments and of their corruption and inefficiency. It established that civil servants should be appointed on merit and through open competition rather than patronage. The report was influenced by the Chinese Imperial examinations and recommended that entry into the Civil Service on merit should be facilitated through examinations.
Since the 1854 Northcote/Trevelyan Report, the British Civil Service has been reviewed many times in addition to individual departmental reforms. These reviews have focused mainly on management and efficiency.
Since T&T adopted the British Civil Service model in 1962, there has been no comprehensive review while there have been many reviews and changes to the UK model.
The authors of the 1968 Fulton report in the UK complained that it had not been allowed to examine questions such as the relationships between ministers and officials, the number and size of departments, and their relationships amongst each other and with the cabinet office. The Thatcher years focused on efficiency measures and increased use of privatisation as a device to allow private sector efficiencies. High-profile reforms have not always achieved the results.
The point is that all organisations, civil service bureaucracies included, must either adapt to changing external circumstances or become dysfunctional. This requires a willingness to address key issues that may hinder the performance of different political administrations.
No political administration will be successful if the public service cannot implement its manifesto policies and programmes.
Dr Terrence Farrell’s book “The Under Achieving Society” identifies an “implementation deficit” in his discussion of the various developmental policies between 1958 and 2008.
It raises the key issue of addressing the development objectives of a growing society. It is not clear whether this deficit is a result of institutional deficiency, or a cultural propensity to underachieve.
In “We Like It So”, Dr Farrell explores the socio-cultural factors that “negatively influence the economic performance of Trinidad and Tobago and arguably other former colonial territories in the West Indies.”
Historical origin will indeed leave scars and negative influences. However, the language and culture of achievement need a different approach than the invocation of negative historical influences.
Other countries have been able to adapt and adjust to the requirements of development even in the face of ethnic and cultural differences. Therefore, social change is difficult but not impossible. It does mean that positive adjustments must be coordinated to include people, processes and systems. The reality is that public service reform in T&T has not been seriously attempted.
The first attempt at a systemic reform of the human resource function in the civil service, “The Draper Initiative,” was stymied by a change in political administrations. Those changes were the first steps.
Continuing and deepening those reforms lacked commitment, either from the public service heads or the incoming political party.
Addressing the required changes will be the subject of next week’s article.
Mariano Browne is the Chief Executive Officer of the UWI Arthur Lok Jack Global School Of Business.
