Ministerial reductions, governance: Explaining Mahama's new structure
President Mahama’s controversial decision to trim the number of government ministries from 30 to 23 is a major talking point in Ghana.
His initiative is not merely an organisational change; it embodies Mahama's campaign vow to enhance the efficacy of government operations, often perceived as excessively bureaucratic under the previous administration.
The reduction is said to be necessary to tackle Ghana’s persistent economic crisis while restoring public trust in governance.
By reducing the number of ministries—representing a 23 per cent decrease—the Mahama administration seeks to respond to public concerns regarding the cost of governance and to align itself with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as part of the conditionality tied to the $3 billion loan secured by Ghana in 2023.
As the new government takes shape and ministers undergo parliamentary vetting—many of whom have already begun their duties—the new government must quickly foster a sense of cooperation and operational effectiveness.
Improved efficiency
There are many claimed reasons for the reduction and restructuring.
A primary focus is to cultivate improved efficiency across government functions.
With fewer ministries, there is the potential for quicker decision-making processes and streamlined operations, enabling the government to respond swiftly to pressing issues.
By consolidating responsibilities, the Mahama administration aims to create a more coherent strategy addressing national concerns, ultimately leading to improved governance.
This approach not only aligns with the public's demands for a more cost-effective model but also addresses concerns raised by the IMF regarding fiscal accountability.
By reducing bureaucracy, Mahama aims to create an administration that is leaner and more responsive to citizens’ demands.
However, this shift would require careful implementation to ensure that it results in tangible improvements in governance while maintaining robust accountability mechanisms.
Despite anticipated benefits, reducing the number of ministries presents significant challenges.
One is the risk of overburdening the ‘few’ ministries, which may struggle to manage increased responsibilities effectively.
This could lead to gaps in service delivery and administrative inefficiencies if roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined.
Critics wonder whether this new structure might create bottlenecks rather than streamline government processes.
Mahama's ministers must take a strategic approach to delineate their tasks explicitly within the new framework to mitigate the risk of any single ministry being overwhelmed.
Moreover, a critical aspect of this restructuring is the need for clarity in the ministries’ roles.
As responsibilities shift and are redistributed, the administration must provide clear guidelines to outline new areas of function.
Clear communication concerning expectations, objectives and deliverables is integral in avoiding potential mismanagement.
Continuous monitoring and evaluation plays a vital role in recognising areas that may require additional support, ensuring operational effectiveness throughout the transition.
However, the question remains: will this reduction in ministries genuinely lead to improved service delivery and cost efficiency, or is it merely a populist approach without substance?
Varied opinions
Public sentiment towards this restructuring is indeed varied, reflecting a spectrum of opinions regarding its implications for Ghana’s governance.
Some view the reduction as a necessary step towards increasing efficiency and reducing costs, others express concern about its potential impact on service delivery.
The historical context also cannot be overlooked; Ghana’s government has previously experimented with reducing the number of ministries.
Past administrations have aimed to cut costs and appear more efficient, yet it is unclear whether such actions brought about meaningful benefits.
For instance, the Kufuor administration amalgamated the ‘Youth and Sports’ ministry with ‘Education’, while the Atta Mills government merged ‘Works and Housing’ with ‘Water Resources’.
These situations illustrate the claimed logic behind such moves—intended to increase efficiency—yet outcomes have often been unpredictable.
Additionally, while the government hopes that these cuts will help it appear 'lean' and responsive to public concerns, there is a fear that fewer ministries may dilute the focus on specific sectors, leading to oversight issues in areas requiring close attention.
This apprehension suggests a need for careful consideration of how integrated services can adequately cater to diverse national needs.
Public accountability remains crucial.
Many citizens harbour reservations about governmental inefficiency, often stemming from past experiences of poor public service delivery.
To alleviate these concerns, the administration must commit to implementing transparent processes and robust reporting mechanisms that enable the public to track government actions and outcomes.
This dedication to accountability will not only instil trust but also foster public participation in governance, thus strengthening the bond between the government and its citizens.
Citizens’ voices
To address these concerns, the government must engage actively with the public.
Citizens’ voices should be prioritised, with initiatives such as town hall meetings and open forums facilitating dialogue.
By actively seeking citizen input, Mahama’s government would not only demonstrate transparency but also cultivate a sense of public ownership regarding governance.
In conclusion, while the reduction of ministries to 23 has the potential to streamline operations and cut costs, the real test will lie in the administration's ability to implement changes effectively.
Time will tell whether Mahama's government can rise to the occasion and fulfil its promises of improved governance, efficiency and service delivery amidst the challenges that such a significant restructuring entails.
The writers are a Political Scientist and Emeritus Professor of Politics, London Metropolitan University, UK
