The politics of public procurement
The Fourth Estate’s story on the current government’s key infrastructure initiative – The Big Push – has reignited the debate about the use of sole/single sourcing in public procurement.
If I understand the story correctly, there are two key takeaways.
First, it seeks to bring the public’s attention to the potential abuse of sole/single sourcing in public procurement.
Second, it raises questions about political accountability and whether the political promises of the current ruling party – National Democratic Congress (NDC) – on this practice when it was in opposition, can pass the scrutiny test now that they are in power.
These are legitimate questions and it is important to answer them in a way that teaches us lessons about politics and public administration.
Sole/Single Sourcing
Amid the heated public debate are some basic points of agreement.
First, sole/single sourcing as an option in the public procurement policy toolbox is not illegal.
Second, because it is a legal option, all the public commentary since the publication of the story agrees that governments are allowed to use it to procure goods and services.
Third, there is also agreement that while the law makes it permissible, there are conditions that must be met and an administrative process that must be followed for this option to be exercised.
On the face of it, approval by the Public Procurement Authority (PPA) would suggest that the conditions were met and the process followed.
The policy intent for sole/single sourcing, I believe, is for it to be the exception, and not the norm.
If it becomes the norm, governments become vulnerable to accusations of corruption and engaging in preferential treatment in selecting those who can provide goods and services to The State.
Every government must therefore endeavour to avoid this pitfall, knowing very well that procuring goods and services for The State is an inevitable part of governance.
Politics of Sole/Single Sourcing
In a multiparty democracy with regular competitive elections, the use of sole/single sourcing in public procurement is simply not a matter of public policy and administrative practice. It is also a matter of politics.
The politics of it manifests itself in two ways.
First, it asks a ruling party whether its government’s use of sole/single sourcing is consistent with its past rhetoric while in opposition.
That is why one of the things we have observed since the publication of The Fourth Estate story is a response from government communicators trying to explain why their position during opposition years is not at variance with current revelations.
The second political dynamic is the response of the present-day opposition.
Recalling its own use of sole/single sourcing as a ruling party and the criticisms endured at the hands of the opposition then, forces them to also raise issues about deviation from political rhetoric and promises.
In my observation, whatever legitimate concerns the opposition has, it cannot be entirely divorced from the politics of “you do me, I do you.”
Between the public and the opposition, the government has the arduous task of doing two things.
First, it must show that there is no deviation from their political rhetoric and promises while in opposition.
Second, and more importantly, it must assure the public that its use of sole/single sourcing is not fraught with any administrative malpractice.
The ability to do both well is critical to maintaining the public’s goodwill and support for an initiative that, when completed, will generally be appreciated.
In my view, the importance of a good road network infrastructure cannot be understated.
What Next?
It is easy and idealistic to suggest that we must collectively strive to get to a point where the use of legitimate policy and administrative tools is not shaped by partisan politics.
There is, however, the reality which leaves me to wonder if this constant vicious cycle of how opposition parties treat ruling parties and vice versa will not have adverse long-term consequences for good governance and democracy in Ghana.
Maybe the system is resilient enough to withstand these cycles.
However, we cannot continue to seek solace in the resilience of the system without recognising the behaviours that can weaken it.
I was asked on Talking Point this past Sunday if it is time to reform the procurement process and have a second look at the public procurement law.
Lately, I am not convinced that what Ghana needs is more new institutions, laws, rules, regulations, etc. because in my humble opinion, we have them in abundance for all areas of our governance architecture.
However, if there is an emerging consensus that the use of sole/single sourcing in procurement is administratively harmful and vulnerable to abuse, then I am open to revisiting the law and a) scrapping it as an option or b) tightening the conditions under which it can be used.
The writer is the Project Director, Democracy Project.
