Why do governments recycle Ministers?

I know I cannot be the only one who has wondered why governments recycle Ministers, especially on our side of the world. How did the Minister of Defence become Minister of Trade & Industry? And why is it the same group of people shuffled around every eight years?

In the process of sharing this thought, a few people shared some interesting answers:

• We have to maintain the political class i.e. elite yesterday, elite today, elite tomorrow.
• Patronage i.e. they are the patrons and that’s that.
• They are the best of those who want to participate in politics.

Now, all of the above may very well be the exact reasons why this ‘norm’ exists in politics, or I may be completely off. But I do think it’s a good start and an interesting one at that. Let us be clear, it is also not “an African thing”; it happens in most other places outside the continent as well.

What’s the issue with governments recycling Ministers?

First, the reshuffling of Ministers across different portfolios is not inherently bad. It can be good. For it to be good though, that depends on a lot of prerequisites, most especially a meritocratic civil service or talent pool.

A counterpoint I imagine is that a leader may not be that great but can surround him/herself with technocrats and subject experts who can do the job. Point taken and also dangerous. Look at America today… but that’s not my business.

My reason for questioning this approach has to do with results.

We ought to question the status quo if it is not yielding transformational results. Surely when it comes to matters of national advancement, we should want the cream of the crop to be in charge? In other words, people who demonstrate or have demonstrated that they can make the kinds of changes that we need. How can we possibly know that?

We learn from others.

Japan, China, and Taiwan, and the likes, have taught us that a competitive tradition of institutional meritocracy makes all the difference.

Why are we having this discussion?

Because it is important.

The more I learn, engage, and interact with the proceedings in the international development space, the more I start to see how development – how we frame it at least – is more a function of politics than it is anything else.

To get development right, we need to get the politics right. Not before growth but in tandem with growth – an idea that was cemented for me in the book Proposerity Paradox – see link at end of this post.

Anyway, in trying to find answers for why we so easily and often recycle Ministers, I had to go back to the way we set ourselves up in 1992, in order to understand how our Executive and Legislature work. Don’t run, stick with me for a moment.

The structure of government and selection of Ministers

Two systems. In Ghana, we are run the presidential system of government led by a President who is the head of government and head of state. On the other hand, in a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is head of government. Think places like Britain and Australia.

In a presidential system, the executive and legislative branches are independent and serve for fixed terms, as prescribed in the constitution. As such, the president cannot dissolve the legislature, and the legislature cannot remove the president without cause, proper cause I should say. I would describe it all but it’s not particularly relevant to me right now so you can read all about it in an interesting paper by Elliot Bulmer, Should Ministers be Members of the Legislature? 

How are Ministers selected and what does that mean?

Ministers in Ghana are appointed by the President. This means that they are responsible to the president, not to the legislature, and as a result, are subordinate to the President.

“Ministers of State shall be appointed by the President with the prior approval of Parliament from among members of Parliament or persons qualified to be elected as members of Parliament, except that the majority of Ministers of State shall be appointed from among members of Parliament.”

78 (1), Ghana Constitution

The above phrasing is the spice for me. What it means is that in Ghana, a majority of the ministers must be appointed from among members of Parliament. But, a minority may be appointed from outside parliament.

In essence, our rules around ministerial appointments allow some ministers to be chosen on account of their special skills or experience. We see this especially in the President’s ability to appoint an Attorney-General from outside parliament. This is especially useful since the AG requires specialist legal qualifications and experience. It might be the same for the Min. of Finance for instance.

On the other hand, the reason why Ministers are selected from MPs is to ensure a minimum level of competence. The idea is that there will be some who have had some practical experience in the challenges and realities of government. And as such, they may be more realistic in their demands. Why? Because they presumably have some semblance of what can and cannot be done. #Nonewfriends

Come again?

Ok, stick with me.

There are generally accepted three reasons why Ministers are selected from MPs.

One, they have won some kind of public endorsement before. That way, we can say most Ministers are selected from people already ‘elected’ by the people. #Democracyforthewin

Second, being legislators may make them more effective at scrutinizing laws. In other words, they are better able to see the practical problems that might arise in implementing legislation. I think this is the “pipe down” stop block.

Third, imagine if the majority did not have to be MPs, nepotism, and patronage galore. Not to say it cannot happen under current arrangements, but I think it reduces that incidence by some margin.

So that’s that on Ministers. 

I explained half of that to say that there is nothing that prevents the Executive arm from shuffling people around per se. Once they are within the MP pool, it’s fair game and perhaps a matter of preference. What I found slightly interesting is that there is no requirement for them to be mightily knowledgeable in the affairs of a particular portfolio… That perhaps is where one of our issues is in this arrangement.

Institutionalizing results and high performance

In order then to ensure we get the best of the best, we must craft a political system where members of Parliament, and by extension Ministers, are held to account for how transformational their work is. Right? A little?

As it stands, that level of accountability does not form part of our political fabric. As such, we risk allowing characters with suboptimal performance tendencies access to a pool that forms a critical part of governance. Certainly, that is mildly problematic.

If an MP has not demonstrated success by some generally agreed and vetted performance indicator(s), he/she must not qualify to be Minister. We really need to be as purposeful and borderline cut-throat with these measures.

We need to desire and operationalize performance and accountability in our political system.

Rather than a ‘yes, minister’ environment where the civil service provides a check and balance for political excesses, and also an independent, professional and effective arm of delivery, African bureaucracies are characterised by high levels of deliberate politicisation and selective discontinuity, driven in part by the need to satisfy different constituencies.

The Asian Aspiration, 2019

In places like China, as far back as AD 605, public officials were selected by merit through rigorous examination. Meritocracy is a part of their culture. In fact, it has been for longer than post-colonial African states have existed. And yet we go on study trips and fail to bring back some of these lessons. Why?

For them, the issue is not why the government may or may not recycle Ministers. They already vet for the best, reward performance and delivery, and punish non-performance. In places like China, sometimes at great (uber punitive) cost – we’re not saying do all that please.

How do we become more laser-focused on performance and excellence?

We need to embrace and establish, almost ruthlessly, a technocratic system that rewards ability and performance (meritocracy).

One in which long-term development trumps short-term elite urges, and more recently, populist inclinations. Without technocratic expertise, a meritocratic culture, and an emphasis on demonstrating individuals’ abilities, our path is unlikely to change. Generations after us will be having the same old tired conversations.

In Ghana, conversations around political performance end in “It’s only God that can change things”. If we are to be more honest, we will admit that politicians can and do make things happen when the desire is there. And that’s how it works. Change comes when there is political will. It’s the same way the Year of Return happened. Nana wanted it to and no one could say otherwise so we went above and beyond to make it happen. Seriously, who was talking about the ‘diaspora’ before 2017? For real, for real. It’s the same for Free SHS…

We surely can channel such determination to improve the results of our political systems.

So the question is not entirely “why do governments recycle Ministers?, is it?

Nope. By now I hope you get where this is going. It is evidently more a question of, “How do we ensure who gets to become Minister is good?” We need to fix the gateway into the MP pool. Even more expedient is the question around how we incentivise change. How do we make change happen? that’s important because no one really just changes for change sake. And it’s the same for our political actors, especially when they stand to benefit from the way things are.

We need to reform the entire processes at best, or our expectations of the current process at worst.

Without that, we will just be playing the game of musical chairs with our legislators without in fact removing any chairs from the game. If someone knows the chairs are not going anywhere because of some elite class their family has always belonged to, a culture of patronage, or that their diction can compete with the Queen’s, surely they will walk. It might, in fact, seem silly to be the one running. The threat of taking the chair away is a major key.

Anyway, I rest my thoughts for today. I need to explore the ‘how’ a bit more. If you have any thoughts on this, I would be love to hear them. Right now my mind is at education. That is true and necessary but we all know the process of indoctrination takes a while. It must be a simultaneous effort but the alternative cannot be an autocratic/authoritarian style of “do it or die”. I have not reached there yet. I do know that there is always another way out – that, we shall find. When we do find, we must make a compelling case for it to be tested out because the status quo doesn’t work. It has not been and it sure is not going to work.

If you haven’t already, check out my last two posts here and here. They are pretty good. 🙂

Random musing

I came across a post by Luvvie Ajayi that was a message for my heart. I hope it speaks to you in some way too. Happy Monday!

Oh! The book The Prosperity Paradox: How Innovation Can Lift Nations Out of Poverty is one of those thought-provoking books about how development happens. One of the takeaways for me was the shift in responsibility and action to us as individuals. Not everyday cry government. Its premise is somewhat the idea that instead of trying to alleviate poverty, we should be focused on creating prosperity through what they call “market-creating innovations”. It’s interesting and you should check it out. If you click on the image below to purchase, Amazon may give me a few cents. Help me win, will you? Thanks.

The following two tabs change content below.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Noelle Wonders

Marie-Noelle is the creator and curator of Noelle Wonders - a blog created to pose questions, exchange ideas, explore power asymmetries, and humanize topics around growth and development.

Latest posts by Noelle Wonders (see all)

• Deciphering Chaos: Provocative Insights from a day at Victoria Station - December 1, 2023
• Can social impact bonds improve employment? - January 11, 2023
• No, setting more grandiose goals won’t bring us development - December 3, 2022