The lust for control leads to abuse
One night I was out on the town and saw this gentleman tossing from one side of a bar to the next. I called a waiter and asked him to help the man before he injured himself.
The waiter looked at me and said, “Why don’t you help him? That man is a Minister of the Government and he could cause me to lose my job.”
It matters not how long ago this incident happened. History has a way of repeating itself and there are persons who believe that the excesses of one government are likely to be repeated in another where there is no check on power.
Power must always be checked. The greatest danger to any government is the risk of Ministers wanting to assume too much control. The modern world of management is not about control, it is about constantly getting things done more efficiently.
If Ministers spend less time trying to control and more time trying to do what they are supposed to be doing. If they relied more on their officials and less on their involvement, they would save themselves a lot of trouble and a lot of stress.
The ‘control freak’ dominates. But the ‘control freak” also has to account for everything that he or she controls, because that person has assumed total control of a situation and therefore is the one who is going to be blamed and sanctioned when things go wrong.
Government is not a small enterprise. Ministers therefore should not be attempting to control matters over which they ought not to be dabbling. Ministers have their hands full. They should allow public officials to deal with the administrative aspects and they concentrate on the bigger strategic issues.
The lust for control leads to abuse of power. This is why the Americans have a system of checks and balances in their government. They recognize the dangers of absolute power.
One way in which Heads of Government have sought to curb the impulse of control by their Ministers is through regular rotation. This has never solved the problem. It has its downside. Some Ministers take time to settle into their portfolios and before they can master them, they are moved. In other cases, simply moving one Minister from one Ministry to the next simply amounts to transferring a problem rather than solving it.
Another danger that faces a government is not removing Ministers who engage in unbecoming acts. There have been known instances where the personal actions of Ministers have been a source of embarrassment to the government. In other cases, the government knows certain things about a Minister and keeps it secret because it does not wish to publicly humiliate the Minister.
But if a Minister cannot control himself or herself, if that person lacks self-control, how effective can that person be as a Minister of the government? How will others respect you if they see you lacking personal control?
There have been instances in the past where the social life of PPP/C ministers reflected a total of lack of understanding of their responsibility to be model citizens.
There should be no warrant against a Minister drinking in a rum shop. There is nothing wrong with a Minister cavorting in places where the simple folk indulge. But for a Minister to spend long hours in such and leave in drunken stupor is unacceptable, and show no respect for his or her position.
Heads of Government have to show some understanding towards the vices of their Ministers. But there comes a time when you have to say no and call the Minister to account. Ministers will make personal mistakes and there has to be some understanding of this.
They should be punished too severely for their first infraction. But repeated wrongdoing or embarrassing conduct should be met with sanctions.
We are into the second year of the new government. People want to see performance. They are not pleased with what is taking place. When people are not pleased, they look for scape goats. A Minister whose personal conduct is open to criticism becomes the perfect scapegoat.