Presidential Cabinet system that works- Lesson from the human biochemistry- Tope Apoola
The idea of a presidential cabinet (comprising of ministry heads who are simultaneously presidential advisers) came to the young nation of America naturally, and to the British as a necessity. There were no constitutional provisions for it; hence, the tradition was susceptible to the usually astute discretion of presidents. When Africa inherited this naturally conceived arrangement, they also inherited the simple oversight that comes with it- the seldom discussed but obvious trouble which makes policy failure one of the few things that are common to both the developed and the less developed nations. Cabinet members are expected to take their dual functions seriously and be loyal to two interests (the presidency and their respective ministries) at the same time. Reality has proven this expectation to be unrealistic. Not only are the cabinet members stuck between the moral dilemma of ‘poke-nosing’ into a counterpart’s ministry, they are also too busy with the businesses of their respective ministries. For the British, J. Harvey identified the problem as a pre-occupation with the interest of departments rather than with national policy as a whole13. In the case of the American system, Ernest Griffiti reports that there is not the time; the individual members are far too harassed or overwhelmed with the business of their several agencies to give much serious attention to the problems of others14.
Asides pinpointed defects of popular administration architecture, I must include that a mockery is being made of a nation’s mental capacity in situations where ministers are expected to make and implement policies that are unfavorable to their own respective ministries. These have been shown to be possible even in countries one would consider as incapable of such administrative blunder. It seems unnatural to expect that much from human beings and the American Center for Study of the Presidency happens to appreciate this fact; the cabinet should also consist of people who are concerned more with central handling, not day-to-day ministerial works. (All these functions), it is said, demand some measure of central handling- the extension of the power of the chief executive through its institutionalization in the exercise of his major functions of direction, coordination, evaluation and planning15. Human beings, being who they are, naturally adjust to conform a little more to reality, sometimes unknowingly. America soon evolved an even more ‘unconstitutional’ but highly essential institution, what is described in a book as technocratic quasi-bureaucracy, also called ‘in and outers’. These half-politician, half-technocrats do much of the ministerial work, thereby enabling ministers to stay put as not to make the president lonely or make the country a kind of busy machine having no visible central coordination
?If we maintain the logical bridge we have created between administration and human biochemistry, we will see that what is being done in world systems are DNAs leaving the nucleus to form complexes with tRNAs. What is being done even in reformed political environment such as America and recently, some African nations are DNAs and mRNAs performing the same functions (mostly theoretically, but still objectionable). A strand of the DNA joins the mRNA in the cytoplasm to advance protein formation. Only our scientists can imagine what would result from such. The lessons of nature are that the DNA does not depart from its twin strand; rather, it has its genetic messages transcribed into the mRNA which now migrates out of the nucleus to the site of protein synthesis. This way, the problem of loyalty deficit is ingeniously avoided. Equally important to the DNA is the higher responsibility of preserving the cell’s hereditary integrity, a function that will greatly suffer if it should seek to leave its other strands for some other business. The creative process is denied a less chaotic and natural development when it is not allowed first of all, to dream widely of its big R, then, to shed certain excesses and conform its dreams to reality. There is problem when the source of energy is not constantly energizing the national machine, where the executive are like Baba Salas who play dual roles in the cinema, constantly changing costumes, acting out two parts. A bit of introspection will make us wonder, how can there ever be imagination or even our God-given right to be stupid when the engineer who knows too much about a particular industry is also the ‘sole’ minister of that industry? How could the DNA strand be the one who includes exons in its message and now be the one to slice them away, worse still, how could both the mRNA and the DNA venture into the cytoplasm at the same time?
?Reality appears to favor a cabinet comprising two classes of ministers; firstly, the senior minister who oversees multiple ministries but whose overriding concern is, together with the president, the central coordination and secondly, junior ministers, whose concern is the day-to-day ministerial works, having more mobility and technical know-how. Twice, the British nearly discovered this model that seems to us as the magical formula of administrative process
?
?
?
?
?
?
The Super Committee of 1970
?
It is reported that when the British experienced downturn in the late 1960s, their natural inclination was to examine their system of administration.?A committee of enquiry that was commissioned came up with what is to be known as the white paper; The Reorganization of Central Government. While authors R.G.S. Brown and D.R. Steel report the recommendations of those enquirers as impressive, I wish to show how consistent they have been not only with reality but also, if I am allowed, with human biochemistry. To be thrilled by those coincidences is to evince the ignorance of what we had labored to affirm at the opening of our discussion. Robert Hooker had explained that man is superior to animals by the possession of natural reason16. Plato had said that he could think what God could think. This is why I suppose the correlation of the committee’s philosophy of government with human biochemistry of the cell should not be met with much surprise.
?Before the white paper was published, D.R. Steel says, there had been several experimental approaches to what he called the Holy Grail of administration. “The search was on for the one best way of distributing groups of tasks17.”
?Expectedly, but heartbreakingly, many African nations were busy borrowing from those trials by error.?Ladipo Adamolekun wrote that the British heritage served as the ideal as Nigeria’s own system; there was no attempt to maintain a clear distance between career officials and policy formulation
?Somehow, the British finally arrived at the idea best aligned with natural reality, but this arrangement was not original to the 1970 committee. Fifty years before, the office of the ‘mRNA’ had been inventeda and charged by the Joint committee on organization of civil service with the responsibility of day-to-day conduct of government business within the framework of established policy. The report goes further to say that these included higher works which required qualities of judgment, initiative and resources19. This is obviously the case of the mRNA, second in importance to the DNA in protein synthesis, migrating to the cytoplasm for a ‘day-to-day’ conduct of the translation within the framework of written genetic messages. This set of new officials, lower in rank to ministers, but higher to civil servants, also our mRNA, is charged with higher work which requires judgment, i.e. in the body cell, the ability to transcribe messages from the DNA, who is the minister, starting from the opposite end and the ability to incorporate Uracil instead of Thymine in the message it is carrying. This attribute of mRNA is without doubt found in the British administrative practice of the 1920s, a system that allowed for a special class of politicians, called ‘in and outers’ in the American system but which we have described as technocrat-politicians.
?Now, if the reader asks what the white paper contained, I could well tell them to get a biology text. It is not difficult to read between the lines.
?The mRNA, we should remember, combines with the rRNA, in the cytoplasm, where it attracts complimentary tRNAs. If I told the reader that the tRNAs are the upper bureaucrats, will the reader be able to fit in the lines for me? I am sure they can.
?Sir Oliver Frank Frank, as an mRNA official or technocrat-politician said this of his duty in the Ministry of Supply during the world war;
?
Once I was clear about what in general was desirable, I would normally go on to find out, through enquiry, consultation, and meeting with experts, what was practicable in the circumstances, identifying the agents, whether members of the civil service or the public who must carry out the plans, explaining the policy and steps worked out to realize it, to make sure that each main agent knew his part and its general context20.
?
Oliver Frank goes to identify the agents the same way the mRNA goes to find tRNAs, which are like the experts in protein synthesis for the reason that they carry the amino acids needed for building protein. The reader should, by now, agree that the tRNAs are the upper bureaucrats or the expert freelancer from the public, who Frank revealed, must carry out the plan. Frank explains the policy and steps worked out to these upper bureaucrats, same way mRNA directs tRNA for protein synthesis. One thing Frank failed to mention, we might have noticed, was the rRNA. He must be a forgetful man for it is the rRNA that makes his relationship with the tRNA possible.
?We are now to make consequential inferences from the philosophies of protein synthesis and the British white paper of 1970. Before we move to see how the French fare, we should spell out the recommendations of nature unabashedly; a function-oriented government structure, having no division for division sake. I will tell the reader whose face is scowled now, why it is so. It is not really the reader’s fault but that a large chunk of the human race has been indoctrinated (with good intensions though) with the ideology of ‘division of labor’ such that they cannot visualize properly, the possibility that power (for those who care so much about power) may still be retained and even procured more easily for the truly astute person, in an environment where there are lesser borders or fences. We see how the creator is more interested in productivity than structure (this appears to be the reason why the investigators of His work sometimes have problems reconciling anatomical structures with their functions). The relative ease with which the RNAs collaborate to implement the policies of the DNA leads us to suspect that the emphasis on structure or bureaucratic ‘territorial integrity’ has done more harm than good. We are not alone in thinking this, as it has been said in the case of the French state that excessive clossonement was one of the failures of a past administration21. I will not give the sharp-eyed reader any moment to consider this as contradictory to what we had earlier flayed; the awkward condition where the mRNA’s works conflict with the DNA’s. This, we cannot classify as compartmentalization, or what the French, in their characteristic vivacious manner called clossonement. It is rather, personal responsibility which must not be confused with communal attachment that is usually the hideout for the uninspired. Ezra Suleiman, in his book, explained how this mentality ‘when I go to a meeting my task is to defend the interest of my division’ cannot augur well for the state, taking as a whole. “Each branch prefers to work within a closed circuit, 22” Saint-Geours said in Pouvoir et Finance. There arises, therefore, an obstructive ethos of one division not readily parting with each needed resources for the benefit of the larger government.
?Now, to explain this model to the reader whose mind is shaped by contemporary things alone could be as difficult as talking irrigation to a bushman from the Kalahari Desert.?How well can the reader imagine that governments could possibly be run with semi-autonomous upper bureaucracy- like university dons, constantly researching, assuming the expertise that will make them the answer to many kinds of problems???If this recommendation of nature should make any sense to the reader, they need remember that there is indeed something called ‘pool’ from which resources can be drawn. The tRNAs exists in a pool, not advancing itself by its anatomy but by its function, by what it is carrying. The choice of word of the biochemist for this condition is almost motivational. They call that tRNA bearing the amino acid for which it is specific, charged. The mRNA is interested only in charged tRNAs for each given time, after which the latter releases itself from the union again to go ‘hunting’ for amino acids. The tRNA is never sedentary but is constantly looking out for amino acids which it will now carry to the site of protein synthesis. This gives us an idea of what the creator’s upper bureaucracy is like; a constellation of highly resourceful researchers who are in constant lookout for ‘materials’ for the purpose of ‘giving flesh’ to the ideas of the political class. The human cell appears to be suggesting something funny. The tRNAs are more mobile than the mRNAs. Again, they carry messages which does not compliment the mRNA’s but simply recognizes it. The tRNA takes instructions from the mRNA but not in the same way the mRNA takes instructions from the DNA. It has been shown how the mRNA would accommodate the tRNA for what it is, not even for what it is carrying any longer. If I were allowed to comment, I’d say that is how far the reputation of the cell’s bureaucrats has come23, like the present day French bureaucrats who are widely considered the doctors of each problem, the transverse between dreams and reality.
?To Suleiman’s bureaucrat friends24, it must be said, that they should seek first this kingdom of man and all other things will be added unto them. Functionality of the body cell does not entirely conflict with the anatomy after all. If we had used the present world mentality in our analogy, we would have arrived at the same organizational structure, only that we would be missing an important point. If we had considered structural elegance, our DNA would still be the minister, our mRNA would certainly retain the junior post, the tRNA obviously has the bigger ego than the rRNA. If we should continue in the musing of mediocrity, we will not be denied of sleep. Even failed nations have hierarchies. Kings may not be wanting in primitive settings. Presidents will still be presidents, and ministers will not change, but they will always find how sarcastic reality is whenever they find themselves among foreign counterparts who go by humbler designations, but are surrounded with plenty of aura.
?If we should now go to the natural sciences to seek for wisdom, would we be mistaking? I guess not. We will only have our big R a little more aligned with the supreme R, teaching ourselves, like the daughter of the tailor whose father leaves her a sewing machine, how to sew. One cheering fact that follows is that there are so many ways by which this kid could arrive at the best way to sew. The human mind and common sense will teach us as much as natural science can. Critical thinking potentially remains just as good. Even if there were more complex relationships among the nucleic acids (and if reality requires equal complexity in policy implementation), the ancient Stoics tell us that the human mind will still fathom those depths. More interestingly, common sense will tell us what we ought to be doing, but I am not about extolling common sense in our discussion for it is the least respected of all sources of knowledge. If common sense had mustered the nerve to tell us what science has now said, we would have disregarded it. We should ask each other closely, has there ever being a system of thought that supports what the body cell seems to be recommending? Very well! Institutionalized dual cabinet system, semi-autonomous upper bureaucracy and general bureaucracy structured on function? That was, to a significant degree, the recommendations of the 1970 committee. Existing ministries were to be merged (based on functional relationship
?The problem, we must remember is that what is supposed to be the most important institution of governance is in many nations, de facto, invisible and sometimes, secretive. Though it is a classic example of how common sense can fathom the requirements of reality, the culture of inner cabinet and outer cabinet is best evolved into an open, institutionalized dual cabinet consisting of policy makers and policy messengers. By doing this, people like the former French director of Treasury can now preface their remarks in meetings by saying; “in the light of the mattes in which I am concerned,” without incensing Anne Stevensa. The philosophy of protein synthesis also suggest that when the center of governance gets it right, other essentials such as the potency of the bureaucracy and of the entire policy process will follow.?
?We have so far established how the mRNA helps out in saving the DNAs from the ‘borderline’ condition which many world systems subject their own DNAs (cabinet ministers) to. We have also said that the designer of the human cell employs a special kind of RNA, the tRNA, bearing, like the rRNA, no genetic message i.e. being politically neutral and not being an active player in the process of policy formulation. The question now arises; why can’t the mRNA just go all out to complex with needed amino acids? Why does it stay, like ancient royals, to be dressed and undressed by so many servants? The African conventional sense does not easily agree with the ethos that obliges a senior to be less mobile or suffer some kind of conferment, sending the immediate subordinate out to the ‘field’, mixing with juniors while pretending to be the boss also to senior bureaucrats. Worst still, how could our mRNA work with tRNAs so many, while having none to himself as a permanent subordinate? While does it, after being armed with so great a detail of the policy now wait on the senior bureaucrat to come with what they’ve got so it can give flesh to those ideas on the paper? I am not good enough biochemist or political scientist to know why, but if I am allowed, I’d read from the white paper of 1970 because Benedict Spinozoa had hinted that the same God that can be found in science can also be found in the thoughts of super committees, even those who are charged with working out the modalities for government. The 1970 committee recommended the grouping of departments (ministries) into large components based on function so as to “allow conflicts to be explored and resolved within departments (ministries) rather than between them. Also, the purpose was to facilitate the development of a single strategy over a wide field of policy; benefit of scale in management and analytic resources.” These, I am to reveal, are well fitted with proposed rationale for the multiplicity of the tRNA in each process of protein synthesis.
“Administratively,’ authors of Administrative process in Britain wrote, the (ministries) were organized in functional wings, under second and third Permanent Secretaries24. I wish the reader to notice how the P.S are being referred to as second and third. This bears a striking semblance with biochemistry choice of words for the tRNAs. There are second rRNAs or third, depending on the functional necessities of work task. It feels convenient at this point to imagine what the work of these Permanent Secretaries could be, by studying the tRNA. It has been said earlier that they do not carry genetic messages. What tRNA does, according to researchers, is to bind messenger RNA and particular enzymes necessary to catalyze protein synthesis. The P.S does nothing by himself or herself but listens to this tech-po to make things happen. The rRNA makes these horizontal working relationships worthwhile, progressing each policies through relevant offices from start to finish. They grease the process of policy implementation, leading the ‘visiting’ mRNA or tech-po through the process and providing needed advice or any needed service in the technocrat-politician’s relationship with the P.S. This is most likely, how the body cell government is being run. Because of this, agents attain whatever status not by what they are but what they do. Resourcefulness now becomes the deal, not even paper exams. This gives us further clue to what the body cell’s civil service is; a sacred place of excited and unending inquisition where the constant presence of politicians seem like unavoidable intrusion.
领英推荐
?As we have seen, the DNA or the senior minister does not concern itself primarily with day-to-day business but is engaged in central coordination, harmonization, policy formulation, evaluation and hereditary integrity. Secondary to their function but also important is the oversight of their mega ministries from a central viewpoint. This is what the 1970 white paper was about. A case of the small r appearing to be in agreement with the supreme R. This way, the problem is addressed of loyalty deficit, unavailability of entire cabinet for inter-ministerial matters, dysfunctional organizational architecture and maladjustment to workload. Emphasis is being laid on productivity and not on process. It is then that bureaucracy can shed the bad reputation for which it is today known in many countries of the world.
Less I forget; the British did not adopt the white paper for long. Like we all sometimes do, they threw it away when faced with challenges that could have been surmounted.
a This system was abandoned after the World War.
a Anne Stevens disapproved this reigning mentality in French bureaucracy in an essay, The Higher Civil Service and Economy policymaking, published under a 1980 book edited by Schain and Cerny.
How Britain is governed 2nd Ed., J. Harvey, Macmillan Education Ltd., London, 1975, pg. 141
?
14.?The American system of Government 6th Edition, Ernest S. Griffiti, Methuen Stebas Inc., New York, 1983, pg. 71
?
15.???See Ibid., pg. 76
Centre for study f the Presidency, Vol. III, No 1, CI-VI, New York, 1980
?
16.?The Social?& Political ideas of some great thinkers of the 16th and 17th Centuries. A series of lectures delivered at King’s College University of London During the session 1925-26, Dawsons of Pall Mall, London, 1926, pg. 71
?
17.?The Administrative process in Britain 2nd Edition, R.G.S. Brown & D.R. Steel, Methuen &Co. Ltd., London, 1979
?
18.??Politics and Administration in Nigeria, Ladipo Adamolekun, Spectrun Books Ltd., Ibadan, 2004, pg. 143-144
?????
????19.?Report on the Joint Committee on the organization of the Civil Service, clause 32
?
The Administrative process in Britain 2nd Edition, R.G.S. Brown & D.R. Steel, Methuen &Co. Ltd., London, 1979, pg. 32
???????????
?
20.??ibid. pg. 37-38
?
21.??French politics and Public Policy, Phillip G. Cerny & Martin A. Schain, Methuen &Co. Ltd., London, 1980, pg. 88