GITU: Whether political or technocrat appointee, the buck stops with President

To begin with, political appointees exist across all nations with any type of governance system. In developed and emerging democracies, these appointments by their very nature are often seen as rewards for the loyalty of the party or coalition and the President. The same comes on the aftermath of running a successful campaign, culminating in attaining the coveted price of the government.

Since independence in 1963, which is well over half a century ago, the appointments to the Cabinet have always been loaded with heavy ethnic, regional and political interests. The reasons for this have always been that they were viewed rightfully as the key avenues to power and the trappings that go with the office.

The first Independence Cabinet was loaded with ethnic, regional kingpins and at times warlike leaders, who wielded immense power and authority within the corridors of central government. To date, only one member of President Jomo Kenyatta’s first Cabinet is alive. This is James Charles Nakhwanga Osogo from Busia county in western Kenya. He is the former Minister of Health.

The issue of political and career appointees is illustrated by South Africa industrial Organizational psychologist Mokgata Matjie, who opines that political appointees refer broadly to employees who are directly appointed by the President.

On the other hand the career executives are persons appointed to a high executive, administrative and policy influencing positions within the state/government public administration or civil service in the capacity to render management advice to political appointees.

The psychologist further points out that politicisation is a situation whereby political appointees’ control of the administrative sphere is growing and career executives the bureaucratic sovereignty are rendered powerless or in retreat.

In making the appointments, particularly to the Cabinet, two schools of thought have emerged: One whether the chief executive should reward loyalty or select based on merit to the diverse positions in government.

Balancing the appointments is not a walk in the park for any national leader. In this case as in many others there are several considerations that have to be put in place.

First, the President holds the duo positions of head of state a symbol of national unity and the head of the Executive arm of government. The President has to juggle the two offices simultaneously by taking care of all interests.

Second, in making the appointments, he has to put in place men and women who are able to robustly drive the party manifesto/ agenda. This is the covenant presented to the public prior to the elections.

Third, the President receives his mandate directly through universal suffrage, where citizens express their desired leader through elections. By making irrational — whether political or technocrat —appointments in government that disregard the electorate would be tantamount to political annihilation. This is a vital constituency any leader would ignore at their peril.

Fourth, based on previous edicts, political appointees to the Executive are slated to be people who understand the common person’s key basic needs.

Fifth, the politicians in the Executive have the capacity to interpret policy in a language best understood by the Wanjikus, Anyangos, Chebets, Moraas and Aishas, in other words the people on the ground.

Sixth, technocrat appointees to the Cabinet follow the tenets of policy to the letter. However they have a tendency and more often thought to be sometimes alienated from the needs of the public they are expected to serve.

Seven, service to the people in terms of delivery is what any President expects. The political appointees can be high on rhetoric having been schooled in political chicanery but at times fall short on delivery.

Finally, in terms of allegiance, technocrat appointees owe their loyalty to the assigning authority, while on the other hand; political appointees might have acrobatic tendencies and may not be counted on wholly.

In conclusion, the success or failure of any administration rests wholly with the appointing authority. To illustrate this is paraphrasing former US President Harry Truman's "The Buck Stops Here”. The implication is that all responsibility in terms of commissions and omission rest with the holder of the chief executive officer of the republic of Kenya.

The writer is an educator practising as a governance and public policy adviser.

 [email protected]

@GNjauGitu