Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:59:36
by Ceeloh
In a move likely to stir immediate reaction within political circles, the head of public service Ambassador Francis Muthaura has refuted claims appearing in a crossection of the media that high profile public and cabinet jobs were up for grabs.
Also clarifying the role of the Prime Minister, he noted that the President still remains the head of the goverment followed by the Vice President as head of the goverment business in parliament. The Prime Minister, according to Muthaura, will supervise and coordinate the government functions under the authority of the President. Muthaura added that both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Ministers will assume ministerial portfolios.
On public service appointments, Muthaura said all appointments in the public service are governed by Acts of parliament and not based on the power sharing deal.
Muthaura was adddresing the press at the goverment spokesman press center but in a quick rejoinder the Orange Democratic Movement dismissed Amb Francis Muthaura’s interpretation of the roles and appointment of the Prime Minister saying that it was misleading to Kenyans and a move intended to take Kenya backwards.
Addresing a press conference at Pentagon House, ODM Task Force leader DR Amukoa Anangwe said the statement has caused uncalled for alarm amongst ODM supporters.
Anangwe added that the mediation team had agreed that a coalition goverment be established between PNU and ODM and also provided provision for a 50 -50 sharing formula both in cabinet and in goverment which includes Civil Service and the parastatals.
Anangwe also noted that the structure of the new goverment is being worked on and can only be made public by President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister designate Raila Odinga after appropriate bills have been entrenched in the national accord through parliament.
END
This man Muthaura is out of his mind and he needs sam guidance and counceling. Its only Hon. Raila and Hon. Kibaki who are to comment on the peace accord. He needs prayers i guess the guy is scared he might loose his job. He should actually retire, there are so many kenyans who can do that job better.
THOSE HAVING HANG-UPS AS TO THE PRIME MINISTERS AUTHORITY BETTER LOOK FOR ITS DEFINATION AND ITS “INTENT”-WHY IT CAME INTO BEING:-
FIRST THE POST CAME DUE TO A FLAWED AND STOLEN ELECTION.
SECOND- IT RENDERED THE RECOGNITION BY THE INTERNATIONAL AND CIVILISED COMMUNITY WHERE SUCH PROCESS COMPLEMENTS OUTRIGHT REJECTION OF SUCH ACTIONS-IT RENDERED THE “ILLEGAL KIBAKI GOVERNMENT SOME LEGITIMACY” -OTHERWISE IT IS WHAT IS CALLED “POWER CENSORSHIP”-KIBAKI COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT BY ANY OTHERMEANS..
THE THIRD POINT IS THAT -IT BASICALLY DISSOLVES THE ORIGINAL KIBAKI GOVERNMENT AND ALL FORMER OFFICIALS OF THAT GOVERNMENT DO NOT HOLD ANY AUTHORITY TILL THE ACCORD GOES THROUGH THE PARLIAMENT:-
Raila has no reason to be appeasing PNU. Just because the accord below signed between “Kibaki & Raila” ensures a 50-50 “Executive Authority Powersharing” betweenthe two “Kibaki & Raila” it doesnt bestow power of any kind to any other Kenyan over the two “executives”. PNU – ‘other ranks’ starting with Kalonzo Musyoka must know they are surbordinates of the two and the voters-they are neither equal or greater than the two authorities. THEY [ MPs ] WILL NEVER MAKE, CREATE, OR INTERPRATE ANY LAWS IN KENYA -EXCEPT THOSE HAVING BEEN GIVEN THE AUTHORITY OF PARLIAMENT – after the accord. THE MISTAKEN VIEW CURRENTLY BEING TAKEN ESPECIALLY BY[ PNU]AS IF THE FORMER KIBAKI GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN RECOGANIZED BY ANYBODY IS WRONG AND THE PRESENCE OF THAT ACCORD BEING GIVEN PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY CURRENTLY BEING DEBATED UNDERSCORES THAT FACT. AFTER THE ACCORD IS GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY BY PARLIAMENT THEN RAILA WILL BE ALLOWED TO START FORMING HIS GOVERNMENT STARTING WITH THE NAMING OF HIS TWO DEPUTIES [NOMINATED FROM BOTH PARTIES] A] I THEN SUGGEST HE SHOULD IMMEDIATELY A BOLISH THE POSITIONS OF ALL ASSISTANT MINISTERS AND REPLACE THEM WITH PERMANENT SECRETARIES TO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS- COALITION GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EXPAND UNMANAGEBLE GOVERNMENT BUT INSTEAD SHOULD SHRINK IT FOR MORE EFFICIENT SUPERVISION. B] HE SHOULD DISMANTLE ALL THE DISTRICTS AND TAKE KENYA BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL FOUR PROVINCES SO THAT KENYA SHOULD BE MANAGED BY PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONERS ONLY-SCRAP ALL POSITIONS OF DCs WHICH HAVE BEEN POLITICISED AND USED TO DEVIDE KENYA INTO ETHNIC GROUPS MAKING KENYA REDUNDANT AND INCREASING ETHNIC CLASHES. C] DIMANTLE ALL POLICE COMMISSSIONER POSITIONS AND LET THEM SERVE UNDER THE CITY MAYORS OR OTHER CIVIC AUTHORITY WHERE IF THEY DONT PERFORM THE CIVIC LEADERS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR FIRING AND HIRING WHO ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS- I WAS ASTOUNDED WHEN I READ THAT THERE ARE 1000 POLICE CHIEFS IN KENYA -YET ALL THAT CARNAGE WENT ON UNABAITED AND EVEN MUNGIKI IS STILL IN EXISTANCE! ODM-MUST KNOW THAT UNDER THIS ACCORD IT IS RESPONSIBLE [BY STRENGTH OF PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY PER THIS ACCORD] TO DELIVER GOVERNANCE AND SERVICES OF WHICH ANY FAILURE MUST BE SQUARELY DIRECTED AT RAILA AND HIS ODM.
Implicit in legal notions of supervisory relationships is remoteness. Managerial supervision, however, implies intimacy and collegiality.
To supervise and co-ordinate, carries certain connotations and assumptions. It is hierarchical, assuming a superior/subordinate relationship. It presumes a productive enterprise with goals, objectives and vision.
It also implies importance of values needed to achieve the goals and suggests performance measures. This leads to capacity and authority to reward and punish based on good or insufficient delivery.
In management theory and practice, to supervise and co-ordinate, is both to lead (transformational or transactional), and manage resource utilisation. Depending on the level within the organisation, to supervise may include to hire and deploy or, at least, draw criteria for hiring and mobility between ranks.
A supervisor, then, must have real authority. He carries responsibility for unsatisfactory performance or failure. He must be a leader, capable of crafting a vision and, by inspiration and charisma, able to impel those supervised to adopt, internalise and project the vision. He must be shrewd judge of character and have capacity to exercise sanctions and rewards.
To co-ordinate implies allocation of scarce resources and determination of priorities. It includes ability not just to allocate what is available, but identify new resources. Co-ordination implies the presence of several functions or departments, perhaps singly autonomous, but all working together, in one large mosaic, to create measurable value.
A co-ordinator requires certain skills, including the capacity to understand the internal needs of the different divisions; and the ability to visualise how the relationships between different divisions will create superior value. A co-ordinator must also command respect.
What would it mean to supervise and co-ordinate in the civil service bureaucracy? Max Weber, a sociologist who pioneered the study of organisations, had a very neat conception of bureaucracies as the ultimate machines for efficiency, allocation of functions, meritocracy and so on.
In Weber’s world and time, supervision and co-ordination within bureaucracies would be relatively relaxed. Today, bureaucracy has been subverted into a rule-bound, inefficient, wasteful entity prone to corruption and influence-peddling.
What will the Prime Minister do?
To supervise and co-ordinate Government is a Herculean responsibility. It is not enough to designate an office, whatever the title, with a statutory responsibility of supervision and co-ordination. The enabling statute must define in greater detail, the substance of such functions and must amend, or, supercede a slew of existing, contrary or competing, legislation to create coherence. This must never be left to the surmise or the discretion of those supervised and co-ordinated.
This is necessary for the avoidance of doubt. The civil service bureaucracy is a veritable nest of conspiracy, self-interest, turf-wars, arcane regulations and procedures. These are most effective at thwarting change. Corruption networks are also thoroughly entrenched.
To these interests, legal ambiguities or lacunae are godsent. Add to this reactionary political interests and you have conditions for wasteful acrimony. In this regard, the draft bills on the PM’s office appear ill thought out and precipate.
The way forward is to foresee bottlenecks and respond by creative anticipatory legislation. For example, the job description for the President in the Constitution includes leadership, supervision and co-ordination: S4 (Head of State); S23 (Executive authority); S16 (2), (Executive selection); and S18 (allocation of duties). At S22 (3), permanent secretaries are mandated to supervise departments. The President then has vast, supervisory and co-ordination duties as do the permanent secretaries.
Where, then, does the PM fit in? We suggest that mere creation of the office of PM, with the tag of supervisor and co-ordinator, will not be sufficient. Without power of sanction, the office is a shell.
This is not idle pessimism. True, even without constitutional fortification, the PM’s office can exercise immense influence. The current US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, exercises phenomenal influence and Houpheout Boigny’s last PM, Mr Outtara, dispensed considerable authority, all without constitutional sanction. And so, Mr Raila Odinga can, given President Kibaki’s positive inclination, wield great power.This will depend on Kibaki’s benevolence, not constitutional authority, or, his statesmanship.
But, the Accord states the PM will co-ordinate and supervise the execution of government authority. Execution, in management, is what creates competitive advantage. It creates differentiation in effectiveness and efficiency in public management. And precisely, this execution authority for PM, has great potential to conflict with the President’s executive role, created in S23 of the constitution.
This must be resolved or harmonised. The provisions of new statute and constitution creating the PM, must affect, by amendment or deletion, existing provisions in the law allocating executive authority elsewhere.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7269476.stm
THE FORMER GOVERNMENT OF PRESIDENT KIBAKI AND ITS MEMBERS ARE EITHER DILLUSIONAL OR ABSOLUTELY OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY:-
THIS IS A NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT BEING FORMED-STOP THE HANG UPS OF THE OLD ORDER!
THE ACCORD WAS STRICTLY ACCOMPLISHE BETWEEN KIBAKI-AND RAILA [ANYBODY ELSE WHO PURPORTS TO KNOW ANYMORE OR LESS THAN THAT WILL BE THE CHAIRMAN [KOFFI ANNAN HIMSELF] -AFTER THE THE KENYAN APPOINTED MEDIATORS FROM BOTH PARTIES THREW “TEMPER TANTRUM AND THE CHAIRMAN CALLED IN TANZANIAN HELP AN PLACED THE ACCORD SQUARELY ON KIBAKI & RAILA ANYBODY PURPPORTING NOW TO LECTURE KENYANS ON THE TERMS OF POWER SHARING IS SERIOUSLY CONFUSED….KENYANS DO NOT CARE IF THIS PERSON IS A VICE-PRESIDENT OR ANYBODY ELSE!
THOSE HAVING HANG-UPS AS TO THE PRIME MINISTERS AUTHORITY BETTER LOOK FOR ITS DEFINATION AND ITS “INTENTâ€-WHY IT CAME INTO BEING:-
FIRST THE POST CAME DUE TO A FLAWED AND STOLEN ELECTION.
SECOND- IT RENDERED THE RECOGNITION BY THE INTERNATIONAL AND CIVILISED COMMUNITY WHERE SUCH PROCESS COMPLEMENTS OUTRIGHT REJECTION OF SUCH ACTIONS-IT RENDERED THE “ILLEGAL KIBAKI GOVERNMENT SOME LEGITIMACY†-OTHERWISE IT IS WHAT IS CALLED “POWER CENSORSHIPâ€-KIBAKI COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THROWN OUT BY ANY OTHERMEANS..
THE THIRD POINT IS THAT -IT BASICALLY DISSOLVES THE ORIGINAL KIBAKI GOVERNMENT AND ALL FORMER OFFICIALS OF THAT GOVERNMENT DO NOT HOLD ANY AUTHORITY TILL THE ACCORD GOES THROUGH THE PARLIAMENT:-
Raila has no reason to be appeasing PNU. Just because the accord below signed between “Kibaki & Raila†ensures a 50-50 “Executive Authority Powersharing†betweenthe two “Kibaki & Raila†it doesnt bestow power of any kind to any other Kenyan over the two “executivesâ€. PNU – ‘other ranks’ starting with Kalonzo Musyoka must know they are surbordinates of the two and the voters-they are neither equal or greater than the two authorities. THEY [ MPs ] WILL NEVER MAKE, CREATE, OR INTERPRATE ANY LAWS IN KENYA -EXCEPT THOSE HAVING BEEN GIVEN THE AUTHORITY OF PARLIAMENT – after the accord. THE MISTAKEN VIEW CURRENTLY BEING TAKEN ESPECIALLY BY[ PNU]AS IF THE FORMER KIBAKI GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN RECOGANIZED BY ANYBODY IS WRONG AND THE PRESENCE OF THAT ACCORD BEING GIVEN PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY CURRENTLY BEING DEBATED UNDERSCORES THAT FACT. AFTER THE ACCORD IS GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY BY PARLIAMENT THEN RAILA WILL BE ALLOWED TO START FORMING HIS GOVERNMENT STARTING WITH THE NAMING OF HIS TWO DEPUTIES [NOMINATED FROM BOTH PARTIES] A] I THEN SUGGEST HE SHOULD IMMEDIATELY A BOLISH THE POSITIONS OF ALL ASSISTANT MINISTERS AND REPLACE THEM WITH PERMANENT SECRETARIES TO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS- COALITION GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EXPAND UNMANAGEBLE GOVERNMENT BUT INSTEAD SHOULD SHRINK IT FOR MORE EFFICIENT SUPERVISION. B] HE SHOULD DISMANTLE ALL THE DISTRICTS AND TAKE KENYA BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL FOUR PROVINCES SO THAT KENYA SHOULD BE MANAGED BY PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONERS ONLY-SCRAP ALL POSITIONS OF DCs WHICH HAVE BEEN POLITICISED AND USED TO DEVIDE KENYA INTO ETHNIC GROUPS MAKING KENYA REDUNDANT AND INCREASING ETHNIC CLASHES. C] DIMANTLE ALL POLICE COMMISSSIONER POSITIONS AND LET THEM SERVE UNDER THE CITY MAYORS OR OTHER CIVIC AUTHORITY WHERE IF THEY DONT PERFORM THE CIVIC LEADERS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR FIRING AND HIRING WHO ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS- I WAS ASTOUNDED WHEN I READ THAT THERE ARE 1000 POLICE CHIEFS IN KENYA -YET ALL THAT CARNAGE WENT ON UNABAITED AND EVEN MUNGIKI IS STILL IN EXISTANCE! ODM-MUST KNOW THAT UNDER THIS ACCORD IT IS RESPONSIBLE [BY STRENGTH OF PARLIAMENTARY MAJORITY PER THIS ACCORD] TO DELIVER GOVERNANCE AND SERVICES OF WHICH ANY FAILURE MUST BE SQUARELY DIRECTED AT RAILA AND HIS ODM.
Implicit in legal notions of supervisory relationships is remoteness. Managerial supervision, however, implies intimacy and collegiality.
To supervise and co-ordinate, carries certain connotations and assumptions. It is hierarchical, assuming a superior/subordinate relationship. It presumes a productive enterprise with goals, objectives and vision.
It also implies importance of values needed to achieve the goals and suggests performance measures. This leads to capacity and authority to reward and punish based on good or insufficient delivery.
In management theory and practice, to supervise and co-ordinate, is both to lead (transformational or transactional), and manage resource utilisation. Depending on the level within the organisation, to supervise may include to hire and deploy or, at least, draw criteria for hiring and mobility between ranks.
A supervisor, then, must have real authority. He carries responsibility for unsatisfactory performance or failure. He must be a leader, capable of crafting a vision and, by inspiration and charisma, able to impel those supervised to adopt, internalise and project the vision. He must be shrewd judge of character and have capacity to exercise sanctions and rewards.
To co-ordinate implies allocation of scarce resources and determination of priorities. It includes ability not just to allocate what is available, but identify new resources. Co-ordination implies the presence of several functions or departments, perhaps singly autonomous, but all working together, in one large mosaic, to create measurable value.
A co-ordinator requires certain skills, including the capacity to understand the internal needs of the different divisions; and the ability to visualise how the relationships between different divisions will create superior value. A co-ordinator must also command respect.
What would it mean to supervise and co-ordinate in the civil service bureaucracy? Max Weber, a sociologist who pioneered the study of organisations, had a very neat conception of bureaucracies as the ultimate machines for efficiency, allocation of functions, meritocracy and so on.
In Weber’s world and time, supervision and co-ordination within bureaucracies would be relatively relaxed. Today, bureaucracy has been subverted into a rule-bound, inefficient, wasteful entity prone to corruption and influence-peddling.
What will the Prime Minister do?
To supervise and co-ordinate Government is a Herculean responsibility. It is not enough to designate an office, whatever the title, with a statutory responsibility of supervision and co-ordination. The enabling statute must define in greater detail, the substance of such functions and must amend, or, supercede a slew of existing, contrary or competing, legislation to create coherence. This must never be left to the surmise or the discretion of those supervised and co-ordinated.
This is necessary for the avoidance of doubt. The civil service bureaucracy is a veritable nest of conspiracy, self-interest, turf-wars, arcane regulations and procedures. These are most effective at thwarting change. Corruption networks are also thoroughly entrenched.
To these interests, legal ambiguities or lacunae are godsent. Add to this reactionary political interests and you have conditions for wasteful acrimony. In this regard, the draft bills on the PM’s office appear ill thought out and precipate.
The way forward is to foresee bottlenecks and respond by creative anticipatory legislation. For example, the job description for the President in the Constitution includes leadership, supervision and co-ordination: S4 (Head of State); S23 (Executive authority); S16 (2), (Executive selection); and S18 (allocation of duties). At S22 (3), permanent secretaries are mandated to supervise departments. The President then has vast, supervisory and co-ordination duties as do the permanent secretaries.
Where, then, does the PM fit in? We suggest that mere creation of the office of PM, with the tag of supervisor and co-ordinator, will not be sufficient. Without power of sanction, the office is a shell.
This is not idle pessimism. True, even without constitutional fortification, the PM’s office can exercise immense influence. The current US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, exercises phenomenal influence and Houpheout Boigny’s last PM, Mr Outtara, dispensed considerable authority, all without constitutional sanction. And so, Mr Raila Odinga can, given President Kibaki’s positive inclination, wield great power.This will depend on Kibaki’s benevolence, not constitutional authority, or, his statesmanship.
But, the Accord states the PM will co-ordinate and supervise the execution of government authority. Execution, in management, is what creates competitive advantage. It creates differentiation in effectiveness and efficiency in public management. And precisely, this execution authority for PM, has great potential to conflict with the President’s executive role, created in S23 of the constitution.
This must be resolved or harmonised. The provisions of new statute and constitution creating the PM, must affect, by amendment or deletion, existing provisions in the law allocating executive authority elsewhere.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7269476.stm