Do we need strong persons or strong institutions?

“Africa does not need strong men.

It needs strong institutions.”

These words were famously spoken by former US President Barack Obama which resonated well with so many people. In conducting research to complete an assignment, I read, over the weekend, three Auditor General reports for the year 2023 - a) public boards, corporations and other statutory institutions; b) ministries, departments and other agencies; and c) district assemblies.

The cost of various irregularities in the public sector is quite alarming. It got me thinking about our governance architecture and the administrative systems in place. How do these irregularities occur in the face of internal systems and mechanisms?

For example, Ghana boasts an Internal Audit Agency.

This agency draws its mandate from the Internal Audit Agency Act 2003, (Act 658).

The agency has several designated functions but the two which directly impact anti-corruption efforts are – a) national resources are adequately safeguarded [3(2)(c)]; and b) facilitate the prevention and detection of fraud[3(3)(c)].

The role of internal auditing can be likened to police patrols.

When police patrols are effective, they help with early detection of potential improper activities, as well as prevent them from happening.

If internal patrols worked, I would argue that a lot of these irregularities would not happen or perhaps on a very reduced scale. 

I worked for a state agency in Ohio (2005-2006) and witnessed how critical internal audit offices ensured fiscal responsibility and prevented waste of public resources.  

Putting the Auditor General’s report aside for a moment, does it not seem strange to hear some of the stories in the public domain over the last couple of weeks of administrative lapses in the system?

How is it possible for several containers belonging to the Electricity Company of Ghana (ECG) to go missing?

Where were all the administrative police patrols?

Across the entire process of moving goods from the port, not a single patrol system’s alarm went off to warn that something untoward was occurring?

Strong persons or strong institutions?

Strong institutions do two things well.

First, they empower public administrators in a way that allows them to perform their public duties well, whether it is the formulation, implementation or evaluation of public policies, rules and programmes. Second, they put in place adequate safeguards against the misuse of the enabling power that allows them to do their work.

Here is an example to illustrate this institutional design imperative.

To be able to ensure that beneficiaries of a social intervention programme like the Livelihood Empowerment Programme (LEAP) receive their cash payments, there is the need to have rules in place that allow a bureaucrat to accomplish important things such as a) determine eligibility; b) establish level of benefit; and c) regularly pay the beneficiary on time.

At the same time, there must be rules in place that prevent the bureaucrat from making ineligible persons eligible for the benefits, establishing inappropriate levels of benefits, and delaying the payment of benefits to beneficiaries.

Most importantly, what strong institutions do is to detect and punish any deviation from the laid down rules.

So, in the case of a bureaucrat who pays benefits to an ineligible person, not only will a strong institution be able to discover their activities, but it will also sanction them (loss of employment, criminal prosecution, etc.)

But institutions by themselves cannot do the things they are designed to do.

They need agents – people – who put in motion the things they are designed to do.

And this is where strong persons become important.

Even the most well-designed institutions are vulnerable to potential abuse and deviation.

And that vulnerability becomes a reality when institutional actors are not strong.

By strength, I am referring to the propensity of deviating from, rather than following, the established rules of the game by institutional actors.

All the infractions and irregularities captured in Auditor General’s report – in my view – reflect a system whereby institutional actors easily bypass all the internal checks in place. 

The way forward

In reading the Auditor General’s report and seeing all the irregularities, I ask – what else is missing in our administrative toolbox to prevent such occurrences?

Is the problem weak administrative institutions being exploited by equally weak bureaucrats?

Or is the problem weak administrative institutions easily exploited by strong bureaucrats?

Or is the problem strong administrative institutions succumbing to even stronger bureaucrats skilled at evading the safeguards built into the system?

Whatever the case may be, the repeated pattern of these irregularities and the associated costs make it imperative to find solutions sooner rather than later.

As we think of solutions, in my opinion, we must move beyond the binary diagnoses of the problem – strong persons vs. strong institutions – and begin to probe whether the solutions lie in having both.

The writer is Project Director, Democracy Project