There can be no compromise about the CAL board going one way and the line minister another. If there are differences of opinion, dialogue is necessary to obtain common ground. If none is reached, the position of the minister must prevail, right or wrong. It is the nature of governance for this to be so, for a state board is nothing but a functionary of the government, implementing its agenda for the particular organisation. If a state board lays claim to more than usual independence it may practice such, but always in conformity, never in contradiction, to a point where an issue may go awry as in this instance with CAL.
So this recalcitrance on the part of this particular state board can only be an aberration, and a precedent which this Government can well do without. This brings us to the bigger question of how state boards are appointed. Ideally, selection should be based on competence derived from the desired level of cognition for such a task, as well as knowledge of the workings of the particular organisation which would facilitate its management. But in reality, do these criteria take precedence over the "who you know" or "payback time" syndrome within the party that rules?
For this PM who has clearly articulated her anti-nepotism, anti-corruption stance in public affairs, the answer would most certainly be in the negative, but, practically, will she ever be able to free herself completely from the perennial lobbying that surrounds the appointment to state boards, often based on considerations outside the issue of real competence based on cognitive capacity and working knowledge of the organisation in ques- tion? She should really try, for effectively run state enterprises is a reflection of her own management capability and this should never be compromised.
Dr Errol Benjamin
Via e-mail