Aubyn Hill
THE TWO-PARTY (by convention) parliamentary system enshrines an executive branch of government headed by the Prime Minister and supported by a cabinet that is comprised mainly of elected members of parliament. This historically tested and quite proven system of governance embraces a strong and vibrant democracy. The process of election is democratic, the principle of the winning party - in our case, or a coalition in some other similar democracies - becoming the government is an extension of this quite noble democratic process.
All this democracy enshrines a delicate quirk, however. It places quite autocratic and sometimes near absolute power in the hands of the chief executive of the executive branch of government - the Prime Minister. That quirk gives the prime minister all the authority that he or she needs to lead the government and, in my view, makes the prime minister completely accountable for the accomplishments, or otherwise, of his or her government. He or she gets the praise (he or she takes the praise anyway!) and must take the burden and/or pain that come with inadequate or blotched performance, or plain incompetence of the government that such a prime minister leads.
PM - POWERFUL AND ACCOUNTABLE CEO
Over time outstanding business managers such as Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric Co. of North America, use a combination of their force of will, finely trained intellect and managerial skill and prowess to garner corporate power and fellowership that should rightly come with the ownership of a substantial majority of the shares of that company. In fact, when Jack Welch took over General Electric in his very early forties he started off at a position much less than first among equals. He was clearly the outsider.
Make no mistake, prime ministers in our system of government are not first among equals. They are undisputed leaders of government and anyone who misunderstands that does so at his or her political peril. While cabinet by definition is about collective decision making and collaborative discourse, the prime minister is the only one in charge. It suits cabinet ministers and the prime minister to talk about "collective responsibility" but in truth and in fact no minister in the cabinet with a pinch of sense would allow any major decision to be made under the watch of his or her ministry without first getting the prime minister's agreement and approval.
The truism that the prime minister is solely in charge of the cabinet and government does not completely absolve the ministers of individual accountability. In well run companies significant and major decisions are generally signed off by a number of senior executives, including the CEO. If, for instance, a new production facility is being put in place then the vice-president for manufacturing would be the last signature before the CEO signs off.
In such an instance, the VP for manufacturing is the "cabinet minister" in the company that will be held accountable if something goes wrong with the process. If, however, something goes drastically wrong with the process that affects the earning power and share price of the company - or even the viability of the company - the CEO's neck is on the line.
The VP of manufacturing (cabinet minister) would have fallen on his sword or be pushed out of the window long before the CEO is relieved of his post by the board of directors. In well run companies and in well run governments that is how it happens. In poorly run governments, companies or institutions accountability takes a very distant back seat to loyalty, friendship and winning elections.
I am reminded of former King Hussein of Jordan who appointed prime ministers with the sole aim of holding them totally accountable for any political, social or economic foul ups in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. As absolute monarch, prime ministers (and their cabinets) were dispensable when they failed to perform and economic distress and political and social discord developed under their watch.
A PERVERSE CHECKS AND BALANCE SYSTEM
In our system of government the prime minister is no all-powerful monarch. The very system that gives our prime minister so much power incorporates a design that includes a perverse sense of checks and balances. Fortunately, the prime minister does not entirely get to create the cabinet he or she wishes.
That cabinet has to be drawn from elected officials who bring to the pot from which the prime minister must choose a multiplicity of personalities (in some cases some individuals are accused of having multiple personalities) and a variety of talent and skills - or lack of them - that invariably pose a set of challenges that will make any prime minister wish for the wisdom of Solomon since he or she cannot have the power of Solomon's latter day cousin, King Hussein of Jordan. Our powerful prime minister faces another challenge in that in almost every cabinet there are a number of his or her colleagues who believe they are much better suited than the incumbent for the job of prime minister.
Such a belief is not peculiar to Jamaica and indeed even absolute monarchs have people under them who believe that they could do the job better than the king or queen.
These challenges put an inbuilt brake on the absolute power that a prime minister would otherwise wield. He or she must consider the constituencies which these cabinet ministers represent and must put some or considerable value on the technical and managerial skills that these ministers bring to the table.
Any prime minister must bear in mind the fact that the ultimate objective of a political party is to win elections. A fractious party will never be able to win the respect and trust of the electorate (the JLP has given us ample evidence of that for almost two decades) and so absolute prime ministerial power has to be balanced against unity and agreement of purpose - a major achievement of P.J. Patterson, Jamaica's longest serving Prime Minister until March of this year.
SECURITY OF TENOR
In government, as in business, any time an employee or cabinet minister believes that he or she has unchallenged security of tenor the quality of his or her performance tends to fall. This fact is almost counter-intuitive because most people would think that when a person has job security he or she will perform better.
A measure of job security is required, however, when that security blanket becomes absolute and immovable, lethargy, slackness, sometimes corruption and underperformance fringing on incompetence develop in executives and officials who would otherwise be performing above average or even at an excellent grade.
Prime ministers must ensure that their ministers' noses are held to the grindstone of performance and when that performance and accountability slips then the cabinet minister or executive must be removed. If the prime minister does otherwise, ministers become lazy and underperforming and produce at a level below their competence.
Unless this accountability standard is kept and raised from time to time, ministers who are without competence will not be exposed and removed and the country suffers.
Aubyn Hill is the CEO of Corporate Strategies Ltd, a restructuring and financial advisory firm. Respond to: writerhill@gmail.com.
