I have just finished reading the book written by John Bolton, “The Room Where It Happened”. Bolton was the National Security Advisor of the United States and worked closely in this position with President Trump. It is a startling analysis of how decisions were made or not made at the highest level of the United States Government during his relatively short term of just over a year as the National Security Advisor. While a number of books have been written reflecting the experience of working with President Trump, this book is unique in that it reflects the experience of a political insider, a person who previously had held senior positions during the terms of both Presidents Bush and one who would be regarded as a staunch Republican.
In areas as wide as Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela and North Korea as well as relationships between the United States and her traditional partners such as the European Union and the G20, the interaction between the President, his advisors and the bureaucracy indicates a surprising lack of cohesion at the highest level and vacillation at a critical points in decision making. In particular, the character and personality of the President played a major part in the manner in which the US government reacted to crises across the World.
In a democratic political party system, such as that in the US and South Africa, representatives are elected to political office for a particular term based on their party affiliations. In contrast, an appointed bureaucracy based on their professional qualifications and expertise form the backbone of a functioning government. Both those elected and those appointed are required to operate within the constitution and legal framework created and approved by a legislature consisting of elected public representatives but moderated through a judicial system, which may strike down laws if deemed unconstitutional.
My reading of Boltons’ book, which I recommend to all students of politics, made me reflect on my own experience over a 40-year period in a far more modest way with the workings of government both as a clinician and senior manager. In a description of the handling of a particular situation Bolton, a political appointee, reflects “that the real world includes bureaucrats expert at ensuring they don’t do what they don’t want to do”. This view of the bureaucracy reflects the tension between political appointees and bureaucrats that I myself experienced.
While the rules and regulations that exist within a bureaucracy both in the US and in South Africa are at times frustrating, the consequence of riding roughshod over them are starkly illustrated by what has happened during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa where funds have been misappropriated on a scale that no-one would have thought possible. The urgent nature of the pandemic was used as the motivation to bypass regular supply chain processes often with dire consequences.
One of my first direct experiences with supply chain regulations was when as a clinician having been trained on and worked with a particular make of fiberoptic endoscope, I requested the hospital management to purchase a replacement for this endoscope from the same supplier. To my irritation, an official in the hospital administration indicated that it was required that the specifications for an endoscope would need to compiled and bids sought from various suppliers. My first attempt at compiling specifications were rejected by the administration as “lock-out” specifications as I had simply copied these from the brochure provided by the representative of the company in question. After being assisted by an administrative official the specifications were rewritten allowing a wider range of companies to compete. Subsequently after going through the required processes, an endoscope was delivered to my office. It was not what I had initially envisaged but fulfilled the requirements of the tender specifications and was purchased at the most competitive price. While the process took time what was ensured was that no ulterior motives or perverse incentives were at play in the process.
Later in my career, when in senior management, my then political principal indicated that a particular consultant firm should be appointed to assist with an envisaged project. As with the administrative official in the hospital where I had worked many years earlier, I made if clear that it was not possible to do so and that to acquire the services of a consultancy it would be necessary to test the market though an open process. My insistence on adhering to the required processes was met with a similar reaction to that of John Bolton mentioned earlier i.e. “that the real world includes bureaucrats expert at ensuring they don’t do what they don’t want to do”. I nevertheless stood my ground and after seeking proposal from a number of consultancies, a company other than that initially preferred by the politician was appointed.
This was not the last occasion on which I was faced with a similar challenge both at the political/bureaucrat and the bureaucrat/professional interface. But my dogged insistence on adherence to the required and correct regulatory processes in supply chain and other areas ensured that the organisation that I headed remained with unqualified audits and minimal fraud, corruption and irregular or wasteful expenditure.
At another level, I experienced politicians who ignored or minimised the opinions of experts and bureaucrats in a similar manner to that with which President Trump has approached the COVID-19 pandemic. This occurred to allow a decision to be made that fulfilled a particular political imperative but ignored advice that was based on science and logic. The most glaring and painful example of this during my term as a senior government manager was the willingness to accept the views of then President Mbeki on AIDS that were contrary to all the advice advanced by reputable experts in the field.
In an ideal world, facts and logic should from the basis of decisions in government and not the personal whims and wishes of those in power. These decisions should ensure that the available resources benefit the most people possible and be made within an ethical framework that rises above personal gain and self-enrichment. But we sadly do not live in an ideal world and so the people who elect those to power must hold them accountable for the decisions that they make. Further there must be consequences when they fail to remain within the bounds of ethical and lawful behaviour. It cannot be that a populist approach seeks to justify what is fundamentally wrong with an argument that the end justifies the means such as we have seen demonstrated in the last week outside a South African court of law.
That said, we, the people, should never cease to strive to ensure that decisions made by government are as they should be in that ideal world and if not take a stand to hold those accountable to ensure that they are!
