An Inter-American Development Bank/Government of Guyana-funded plan for the Public Sector Modernisation Programme was recently completed by The Governance Network, a Canada-based management consulting firm, and tabled for discussion with a variety of stakeholders.

It is envisaged that once the relevant approvals have been given and funding acquired the actual reform programme could last from next year until 2010. Clearly there will be no overnight change and that in itself has implications for the political directorate and other stakeholders.

Chockfull of the type of bureaucratic jargon that such exercises revel in, for example, one of the ingredients for success was identified as “Distributive and facilitative leadership - the promotion of managerial delegation and corresponding accountability sustained by evidence-based performance assessment, bringing a new collective managerial ability”, the executive summary of the Public Sector Modernisation Design Plan (PSMDP) nevertheless laid out the key difficulties constraining Guyana’s public service.

After various exercises through phases 3-5 of the PSMDP, the executive summary pinpointed one overarching finding i.e. the present state of the horizontal planning and management systems of the government “significantly impedes the government’s ability to mobilize human and financial resources, plan for their utilisation, manage the delivery of programming and assess performance”.

It identified a number of contributory factors. Among these were overlap, duplication and blurred lines of authority; emphasis on procedural compliance at the expense of results; human resources management systems that are either inoperative, have not evolved or have been left to ossify; nominal policy formulation; few programmes linking expenditures to performance milestones...” Ministry of Finance procedures appear to inhibit even medium-term planning, which could link expenditures with outcomes”; a command and control management culture which inhibits managerial delegation.

Another contributory factor was cited as few if any regularised means of seeking citizen input and this was compounded by decision-making which appears to be opaque with limited means to show the public what the government was achieving and how it is doing so.

The PSMDP sets out five “cornerstones” for the modernisation of the public service. These are: strengthening policy development and coordination, building a performance monitoring and evaluation structure, establishing a new human resources management infrastructure, developing a management framework for arm’s length agencies and fostering transparency and integrity.

To produce results in the modernisation exercise, the PSMDP identified three interventions: clarifying the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of permanent secretaries; extensive intra-ministry analysis and diagnosis enabling individual ministries to undertake reforms; immediately reviewing Government of Guyana programmes with a view to rationalising them and improving programme delivery.

Finally, to bind all of this together, the PSMDP proposes the setting up of a Modernisation Management Board which will have responsibility for the overall stewardship of the long-term redesigning of the public service.

Properly harnessed, the proposed Public Sector Modernisation Programme (PSMP) could be a boon to the country from two perspectives. First the public service is the engine that drives the wheels of governance and it follows that the government will only be as efficient and effective as the foot soldiers in the public service - from the permanent secretary right down to the office messenger - allow it to be. But first they have to be mobilised in well-defined legions, assigned properly identified tasks and evaluated often.

Second, on the frontlines of the public service where the civil servant and the citizen interface in a broad array of environments there is vast scope for improvement. While an inefficient and disorganised government can disorient the public service and reduce its productivity, the delivery of basic services from passports to mailing out replies to house lot applicants really depend on the quality of the public servant, his/her training and their motivation.

It is in this area that the public can attest to myriad examples of the boorishness of front-office public servants and their ill-preparedness. From basic manners to understanding simple requests the public has had its fill of the crude behaviour of public servants who cheerily continue their gossiping about workmates or discuss the latest calamities on Y&R in the full hearing of exasperated citizens.

So clearly the PSMP can yield tangible benefits but there are several hindrances that have to be overcome and are mentioned tangentially in the executive summary of the PSMDP.

The entire country has to own this plan and it has to have the broadest acceptance particularly among political parties. With a medium-term outlook of around six years the plan could straddle two potentially distinct governments which should both be in favour of it. For instance, the PNC has always argued that its British-funded reform of the public service was not continued after it lost the 1992 elections though it was widely felt that that exercise had not benefited from broad public consultation and was a narrower programme. Nevertheless, it resulted in the contraction of central government to 11 ministries only to have the PPP/C greatly expand this number and virtually reverse the changes. A new PSMP must have all-party support for its goals and given their importance the public service unions must be integrally involved.

Secondly, no matter how intricately designed the reform programme is it has to take account of a complement of public servants who are demotivated and harbour resentments. There are undoubtedly those who labour heroically in the tasks set for them but many others who are uninspired by their pay and see no real hope for being assessed on the basis of merit. Whatever it does, the PSMP has to incorporate within its workings the promise of pay increases and merit increments for public servants based on a precisely defined wages policy. The policy has long been promised by the government but remains undelivered. If public servants are to be motivated to do a better job they won’t do it simply because it is best for the system. They will do it because it is the best option for the system and they are going to get a living wage for doing it.

Thirdly, in the backdrop of the debilitating brain drain that afflicts the country, it is unclear where all of the skills necessary for the execution of the PSMP and its monitoring will come from. The plan can easily founder in a human resource-deficient environment and it therefore has to encompass specific measures for retention of skilled persons and/or encouraging re-migration.

It is refreshing to see the emphasis that the PSMDP places on fostering transparency and integrity in the public service which goes as far as promising an Access to Information Act or Freedom of Information Act as it is better known. In addition to this, the plan projects the release of annual reports for all ministries within 12 months and the setting up of client services councils. These could help immensely in bridging the gulf between the civil servant and the public.

There was scant mention of the media in the executive summary considering the role it would be expected to play in disseminating information once the plan gets underway. As a matter of fact, in the Leadership Group consensus report which was part of the PSMDP deliberations, eight groups of boundary partners - defined as those that influence and those that need to be influenced - were listed and the media was not included in any one of those.

This project is full of promise and is another of those national exercises which invites participation by all for the benefit of the country. We look forward to further developments on this front.