Unpacking principles of public administration in Zim

The result follows the cause — ordinary politics may not be managed properly and the constitutional fundamentals would be ignored by ordinary politicians.

WE READ about public administration, the implementation of government policy, every day and it can only be averred that it is generally in a Lazarus state.

All we have to buttress this averment are widespread reports on acts of maladministration such as kleptocracy, corruption, nepotism (including “homeboy” and “home-girly” acts), criminal abuse of office, misappropriation of public funds, concealing transactions, the raising of false flags, greasing, bribery, “facilitation” fees, kickbacks, red tapping, and so on.

It only takes one peek inside a newspaper to see that public administration points to a throbbing picture of governmental behaviour and activity. Apposite is the need for the general populace and all government functionaries to strive to shun malpractices lest they become cancerous. Zimbabwe has one of the fastest growing rates of corruption in the world, largely due to growing endemic forms of systemic and subtle corruption.

Studies by institutions such as Transparency International Zimbabwe are crucial in understanding practices such as corruption. Where do we get the general answer to curb acts of maladministration? The challenges keep swelling on a daily basis. Chapter 9 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013, provides the best starting point.

There are about eleven principles that are found in section 194 of the Constitution. They are listed as part of the “basic values and principles governing public administration”. They govern the exercise of administrative behaviour in all tiers of Government, including institutions and agencies of the State, and Government-controlled entities and other public enterprises.

Before dealing with the principles, it is important to briefly deal with the convergence between politics, public administration and the law. Idealistically, the public administration-politics dichotomy owes its origins to Woodrow Wilson. His starting point was always to offer an answer to that ubiquitous question: what is the relationship between politics and public administration?

Those in academia know their way around this question. Politics largely answers the “what and when” of governance whereas public administration answers the “how and why” of governance. I cannot go into detail in this respect in this article.

Suffice to employ Professor Peter Self’s description of the link between politics and administration as shown in his book, “Administrative Theories and Politics: An inquiry into the Structure and Processes of Modern Government”, 1972, published by George Allen and Unwin Limited.

He states in relation to the origins of the subject of public administration that, “almost everywhere the study of public administration developed as an offshoot of either political science or public law, and until recently administration as an academic subject was the very plain step-sister of these older disciplines”.

That said, the principles of public administration can be studied from the perspective of the older disciplines. For instance, the ubiquity of politics cannot be ignored in studies of any academic discipline — including public administration. Similarly, the green lights and red lights in the sphere of public law (constitutional and administrative law) are used to explain the law and policy dichotomy.

Although law is not policy, and policy is not law, policy makers are given some green lights by the law to do certain things for the good of governance. Similarly, the law imposes some red lights which policy makers and implementers must respect. The Constitution is the highest source of signposting and benchmarking the red lights and green lights on administrative activity.

The constitutional principles People use the following constitutional principles to demand vertical accountability from public administrators. Vertical accountability is used here to simply describe the relationship between public officials as part of policy givers and implementers and the citizens as part of policy takers, influencers and consumers.

The first deals with the maintenance and promotion of a high standard of professional ethics. Public administrators urgently need to have a code of conduct to regulate their behaviour. Some arms of the State have codes of conduct for their members. Judges in Zimbabwe lead the pack in this regard. Because the Judiciary is a State institution under the separation of powers or functions doctrines, other State institutions and agencies can take a leaf from this thin but detailed code of judicial ethics.

The second speaks to the promotion of efficient and economic use of resources. The role of human and other resources in public administration cannot be underestimated. Most importantly, human resource controls the efficient and economic use of other resources (physical capital such as transport, power, communications; economic capital and so on).

Thirdly, there is need for public administration to be development-oriented. I may not deal with development theories and crucial issues such as human development index here, but it must be stated that with the global emergence of economic infrastructural development in all spheres of governance, public regulators and development analysts must emphasise on the role of development policy in economic growth, where development policy refers to the measures, which promote efficiency in public sector management and ancillary fields of the Government. The Government of Zimbabwe has declared 2018 the Year of the People. Important issues to focus on should include access to their income and involving marginalized societies in the development agenda.

Fourthly, services must be provided impartially, fairly, equitably, and without bias. This “non-bias” norm is pitched from a natural law and normative perspective. For administrators, perhaps the most significant challenge facing them is institutionalised bureaucracy. Providing services in time is difficult where there is no decentralisation or where subordinates are not empowered to make important decisions on certain issues. One way to go is for government functionaries to delineate responsibilities of certain departments and advise the public of the new developments.

Fifthly, there is need for responsiveness to people’s needs. Attached to this is the element of “reasonable time” and “public participation in policy making”. Although responsiveness is self-explanatory, the concept of reasonable time is elusive.

Now that public participation is obligatory, there is need for the public to be involved in benchmarking the concept of reasonableness. The Government and the people are called upon to be both the referee and player in this regard. Of course, cognisance should be made to the fact that responsiveness is a founding principle of good governance that is listed in section 3 of the Constitution. It is also a consideration that is used by courts of law to interpret the Bill of Rights in terms of section 46 of the Constitution.

Sixthly, accountability to the people and Parliament is obligatory. Whereas administrators have their own internal controls, the Constitution makes the people and Parliament part of the external controls on administrative activity. Sharon Hofisi is a lecturer of Law and Public Administration. For feedback, write to sharonhofii@gmail.com <mailto:sharonhofii@gmail.com> Read the full article on www. herald.co.zw