It is widely recognised that any new administration, after an election, comes into office with an urge to meet the expectations of the voters.
This is because of the need to assuage the fears of those who did not vote for it, as well as to satisfy the expectations of its supporters.
And where an election is too close to call, there is always an urge to prove the opponents wrong and to show that you are better than the other side no matter the margin of victory.
Because of this reality, every new government begins by appointing public service men and women who would inspire confidence in the new administration.
More often than not, this is also tied to making relevant policy pronouncements to demonstrate that you are on course to deliver and meet public expectations.
Trust and confidence in any new government are established by sending out the correct signals of ‘doing things right’ and identifying the capable and trusted people to implement new policies and campaign promises.
In the United States of America, among other countries, the names identified to fill senior public posts in a new administration are widely debated by the public and the media.
The media often plays the role of hunting for dirt, where there is a need to or revealing the character of the nominees.
The track record of the nominees is studied and presented to the public. But issues of integrity and morality dominate the public discussions in America.
Moral character is given more attention than qualifications. Misogyny is castigated; anyone who has ever abused women or is prejudiced loses out and fails the test. This is the first step – morality as a benchmark.
In Kenya, we are yet to develop a culture of robust debates on the quality of nominees to Cabinet positions. Our society is much more preoccupied with ethnic representation and composition.
Ethnic representation is often the first issue raised even before we discuss the track record and the general quality of men and women appointed to serve. Issues of integrity, track record and morality are generally peripheral.
Our debate is narrow because of the nature of our society. Kenya is beset with high levels of inequalities, imbalances in ethno-regional development and internal disparities in terms of the level of poverty.
Many attribute these challenges to how past governments distributed public sector positions and the subsequent distribution of development.
The ethnic composition of the Cabinet, therefore, is an important issue as it helps each group to know how best they can benefit from the government.
To many communities, what matters is whether those who are appointed are a strong bridge between them and the new president and the government in general. Period.
It matters then who is appointed, where and the functions allocated to their office.
The various communities see representation in Cabinet as a bridge to power and development through public resources.
On the whole, our approach to establishing a new government is guided by a lot more factors than the simple technocratic ability to perform. And it is not politics only.
The problem with our approach is that it prioritises the inclusion of communities over the ability to deliver.
This sometimes upsets development priorities. People focus more on ethnic composition than the policies to be implemented. In the end, this leads to loss of focus by the whole country.
The ‘Hustler Cabinet’ that President William Rut o has nominated for vetting by Parliament fits this logic.
Many of them vied in the August 9 elections. In fact, some were runners-up in their respective races.
Others tried their luck at party primaries but stepped down. On the whole, we are talking about nominees drawn from the political pool.
The ‘Hustler Cabinet’ is different from the UhuRuto Cabinet of 2013 and 2017. In 2013, there was great demand to break with the past.
The public reading of the 2010 Constitution was that the Cabinet should have technocrats. Given this reading, Uhuruto Cabinet had a large team of technocrats.
Many of them had not ‘touched’ electoral politics at all. And everywhere they went and met politicians, they looked scared.
They did not know what the politician would say. To many of them, politicians were loose cannons and shot from the hip.
But critics said there was a disconnect between the technocrats and the citizens. They avoided communicating performance.
They assumed public service is about results without a loud voice to spell out the results. They thought rational analysis is what is required in public service. But they were wrong.
Rational analysis of problems requires an understanding of politics too. It requires a combination of political lenses and technical lenses.
They lacked a political lens. And every time they tried to do politics, they had egg all over their face. Some attempted to do politics but looked foolish and embarrassing all the time.
The ‘Hustler Cabinet’ is political; it is drawn from a political pool. Few in its ranks have worked in public service before.
But the public service at the national level – specifically the national government ministries – presents different hurdles from those in county governments or Parliament.
First, public sector reforms initiated in early 2004 came to a halt some years back.
Performance contracts were introduced for the public sector but these are today an end in themselves.
This has been replaced by high levels of mediocrity; there is no inspiration for quality. But there are islands of great achievers. A few individuals in our civil service are disciplined, hardworking and driven by the desire for high-quality service.
The second problem is the culture of per diems. In the past 10 years, the Controller of Budget and Auditor-General reports have been replete with cases of wastage of funds.
Per diems for out-of-office meetings away from the head office drive expenditure in government ministries and parastatals.
It is not surprising to find those working in Mombasa travelling to Nairobi to host a workshop. Those in Nairobi will go to Mombasa or Kisumu, if not Naivasha.
It is about meetings and more meetings throughout the year. And if the Cabinet Secretary or the Principal Secretary attempts to stop it, then ingenious approaches are invented to overcome the directive.
And if this does not work, then a ‘wait and see’ attitude is adopted. This could even begin with sabotage or putting the seniors in trouble.
In the end, the Principal Secretaries and Cabinet Secretaries are shuffled as is always the case. New ones come to the office and the trend continues.
This is the public service entrusted with supporting transformation in Kenya. Unless there are fresh public sector reforms that are radical enough to ensure a break from the past, the ‘Hustler Cabinet’ will meet real ‘hustlers’ in national government ministries.
These may place brakes on anything that threatens their interests. They do so in the name of protecting the public.
To succeed, there will be a need for thoroughgoing reform of the public service; deep enough to introduce new culture, behaviour and values.
Prof Kanyinga is based at the Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi; [email protected] ; Twitter: @karutikk
