By Olorogun David Edevbie
WED 28 JULY, 2021-theGBJournal- The Role of Technocrats in Government is a fit enough subject to deliberate on and there have been several scholarly works on it which I will reference in the course of this lecture. But by prefacing the topic with “2023”, it is not lost on anyone that that evokes the imagery of election in view of the fact that it is the next election year in our national calendar.
Election by itself is synonymous with democracy for the vast majority of Nigerians since it provides our people a sense and opportunity of participating in their governance through the choice of leaders of government and representatives in the legislature.
DEMOCRACY
As we shall observe in the course of this discussion, “democracy” and “technocrats“ are not exactly words that have symbiotic relationship. More often than not, they are actually in conflict even when it is beneficial to society that they exist in amity.
If one were to enquire from Nigerians what is responsible for the present crisis in our country today, I believe that it would be no exaggeration that the most common response would likely be “poor or non-existent Leadership”. May I therefore crave the indulgence of the audience to respond to the subject of the day by presenting my perspectives gleaned from several sources but more particularly from two well researched publications titled “Technocracy and Democracy: The Challenges to Development in Africa” authored by Francis E. Owakah and Robert D. Aswani and “Role of Technocrats in Nation Development” by Engr. Aftab Islam Agha.
To Owakah and Aswani “democracy is a system of governance in which political leaders are freely elected, with the underlying assumption that the leadership will be responsible to the governed by translating pre-election pledges into concrete policies that enhance the general welfare of society.
However, the elected leaders rely on experts to formulate and implement the relevant policies. Such technocrats therefore exercise authority and power by virtue of their competence in specific fields.”
This basically assumes that Politicians are elected leaders in a democracy and are held accountable through the electoral process and technocrats are not voted for but wield influence on the politicians through their expertise.
In his famous Gettysburg address, American President Abraham Lincoln gave the world what has become the most popular definition of democracy as “the government of the people, by the people and for the people”. Expatiating on this definition, Dahl, Robert 1989 writes “the term ‘democracy’ connotes political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government.”3 While Dahl is right to an extent, he misses a critical characteristic of democracy embedded in the Lincoln definition. That characteristic is the ownership of government by the people which is best demonstrated through the electoral choices that people exercise.
In most democracies, ours being no exception, politicians/political parties are elected based on their published election manifestos. However, an election manifesto is merely a source of information for potential voters to help in deciding if a political candidate/party is to be voted for. It helps in highlighting to the electorate the areas and issues that the candidate/political party cares about and wishes to deliver on. The election manifesto is by no means a policy, strategy or even the delivery instrument. However, once elected, the manifesto commitments or electoral promises will need to be translated into polices and delivery strategies and this is where the challenge sets in for the elected politician – to transform these commitments into actions. In majority of cases, the elected politicians are not equipped to do so and hence the need to defer to those technocrats with the attributes to do so. Owakah and Aswani in their publication assert that: “A politician’s mandate is not based on knowledge, skills or performances. In essence, an election brings on board both experts and non-experts. The challenge is that the politician will be evaluated by the electorate on the basis of how well he/she translates his/her pledges into action.”
They assert further that “the flipside is a thorough examination of what role specialized knowledge ought to play in leadership, given that the society is so complex that solutions to its problems require multiple threads of expertise.”
There is a kind of conundrum here. People elect politicians in their desire to promote their overall well-being, but the politician is not elected on the basis of knowledge, expertise or problem-solving capability. Owakah and Aswani assert that “if the aim is to create a future most desired by the people, effective leadership must move from conscious belief-based decision-making to value-based decision-making.”
They then pose and answer a fundamental question: “when a decision is being taken, is it aligned with the values represented by the government and the democratic aspirations of the people?
If the decision were to be rational but not in concurrence with such values, it would not be consistent with the objectives in the first place. Democracy, just like all other forms of governance, is not a clean, theoretical concept applied to reality, but a process that has evolved and continues to evolve.”
Here, let me make an observation that we are all familiar with. Typically, we rate the success of our politicians/Administrations by the number of “Flyover bridges” or other civil construction schemes that they undertake regardless of the fact that such projects may not as a matter of course, be projects that the government has a duty to undertake or facilitate. Needless to say, these public investment decisions are mostly politically driven due to their popular appeal, as opposed to their inherent ability to generate quality life for the citizens.
The very foundation for democracy to even deliver on the promises of the; ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’ is an acceptable legal framework for a commonwealth known as the Constitution. In our case for instance, there is an overwhelming view that our present constitution was designed by a particular part of our country solely for their interests. Demand for a new constitution negotiated and adopted through a referendum has continued to meet stiff resistance, because of fears that radical constitutional reforms arebound to destabilize the balance of power. And balance of power here does
not reference only regional powers. Even civil servants organized in a bureaucracy – a class that is supposed to be based on professionalism and expert knowledge – sometimes interfere based on their own interests and those of the political leadership which frequently override the pursuit of the true common good of the commonwealth.
For a people that have suffered loss of personal liberties and acute poverty under a dictatorship, democracy is romanticized as an elixir for underdevelopment. However, in its pure form, democracy is the most impracticable of systems. Little wonder that British war time Prime Minister Winston Churchill once said of it “it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”
This statement is a reference to the fact that while in theory, democracy is the government system that belongs to everybody, in practice, it is impossible for everyone to be involved directly in the government that they own. Owakah and Aswani capture it succinctly when they assert “to appreciate this, one only needs to look at ancient Athens where every day, about five thousand men met at the main square to deliberate on all issues including but not limited to war and peace, the budget, the laws, kinds of punishment, property and life. Such a system of course, could not allocate resources rationally, because it lacked the requisite expertise to do so. It actually misallocates resources depending on the prevailing political interests.”
I subscribe to the school of thought which claims that fellow country men and women appear brainwashed into believing that most political leaders understand and have solutions to all the challenges afflicting our society. In fact, the leaders themselves often lapse into some kind of Messianic complex believing indeed, that they know more than they know without a care for their human limitations. Owakah and Aswani describe this as “one of the contradictions of democracy in practice – put mildly, that the ruler’s vision is based upon and defines proposals and suggestions made by millions of the country’s citizens.”
In reality, they insist that “put another way, to win the mandate of the people, what a politician does is to articulate the collective wishes and aspirations of the people as he/she understands them and present same to the people for electoral endorsement.” Once the election results are called and a winner has emerged, democracy is assumed to have delivered.
TECHNOCRACY AND TECHNOCRAT
“The term technocracy derives from the Greek words “tekhne” meaning skill and “kratos” meaning power, as in government, or rule. Of course, Technocrat is a noun derived from Technocracy. Thus Technocracy refers to a government of Technocrats.
To Tucker, Joshua 2011, “technically (no pun intended), a technocratic government is one in which the ministers are not career politicians; in fact, in some cases they may not even be members of political parties at all. They are instead supposed to be “experts” in the fields of their respective ministries. So the classic example is that the Finance Minister would be someone with an academic background in economics who had worked for years at the IMF, but has not previously run for elective office or been heavily involved in election campaigns.”10 I am sure we are all familiar with this concept in Nigeria following the participation of people like Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala in government as Ministers.
Agha, Aftab, 2012 defines the technocrat as “the person who is chiefly concerned with the application of the stock of modern, transnational knowledge to developing societies. Such a person is concerned with the application of problem-solving analytical skills to the perplexing questions of development. In addition to the implementation of change, an equally important contribution is often the creation of awareness among his countrymen of the potential directions of change. The technocrat usually combines knowledge of these skills with a sense of professionalism and craftsmanship.”
He adds that, “In the conceptual development of a technocracy, the expert is an indispensable administrative staff in a political system”12. I suppose that this is why people tend to assume that technocrat is a synonym for bureaucrat but that is not necessarily correct.
According to Agha, “the more restrictive definitions of technocrats typically also only refer to appointees to the executive branch and do not include permanent bureaucrats. While permanent bureaucrats can have substantial policy influence particularly when there is a large degree of delegation of policy to bureaucrats, such as to influential ministerial departments like the departments of finance, in most instances the restrictive definition of technocrats is reserved for cabinet members that have a direct control of economic policy.”13 This is therefore the explanation for the regular reference to Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as a technocrat by the media.
ROLE OF TECHNOCRATS
To Agha, “the role of technocrats is primarily to make structural changes and implement reforms that politicians can’t or won’t. Typically, a crisis of constitutionalism, entailing the introduction of knowledge-based means of assessing the desired development needs, aligning them to available resources, and mainstreaming these in a future value-oriented thinking and policy decision making. The technocrat seeks to inform, assess and integrate the infrastructure in a merit-based management system.”
EXPERTISE AND CITIZENSHIP: THE CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY
The intrinsic assumption in a democracy encapsulated in the citizens’ vote is that citizens understand their circumstances and use the vote to make decisions that affect their own lives. But as Owakah and Aswani point out, “governance is so complex that a mere vote cannot decide on the suitability or otherwise of a particular policy” I can add to that ‘or a menu of policies.’ As a matter of fact, not even common ideological difference between capitalism and socialism is that simplistic.
Nonetheless, the crucial question remains would Ike Pere Ogheneovo know what to do with the government if he took control of it? Take the current situation in our country, for example, where our national security architecture is on the verge of total collapse. What should agitate the mind of every citizen in this circumstance are the prescriptions of any aspiring leader to the debilitating insecurity and concomitant pervasive poverty.
From the point of view of a technocrat, this problem can be addressed through a solution-based perspective if a technocratic system is embedded in the democracy. The same approach would be deployed in tackling the multifarious problems of our society such as acute and growing poverty, lack of electricity, acute unemployment, lack of access to quality education and healthcare and lack of affordable transportation system. The Technocrat would approach these problems as investment decisions requiring costing them and prioritising their delivery with full attention to their interrelatedness and how they will be paid for, that is the source of their financing. Sachs, Jeffery 2005 captures this very well in his assertion that “a value-based democracy ought to be managed by people who appreciate that development
is not merely concerned with material well-being, but also covers in a broad sense, all forms of human progress. Thus the development brought about by a genuine democracy would not be measured merely by the increased per capita income of the citizens of a country, but also by their political and economic freedom and their equal enjoyment of the fruits of growth. Honest democracy means the ability by the political leadership to recognize their limitations, and to invite experts to perform important tasks in society, without feeling slighted.”
Clearly, integrating technocrats within a democracy can deliver democratic aspirations. As Owakah and Aswani aver, “Malaysia under Mahathir Mohamed serves as a case in point. Economic prosperity took place within a framework of anything but western-style democracy. It is evident that both democracy and development denote a continuous change brought about over a sustained period of time through deliberate efforts. In both cases however, the role of the expert cannot be downplayed.”
Thus, by integrating technocracy with democracy, a certain level of discipline is imposed that results in improved outcomes.
Writing in the same vein, Wallace, Andrew (2007) asserts that “the concept ofTechnocracy is the ‘rule by skill’”. Going further, Wallace “likens technocracy to a platonic meritocracy of the skilled.” Of course by this definition, Technocracy is in apparent conflict with Democracy. However, despite the postulation that Technocracy and Democracy can be antithetical, Owakah and Aswani argue that “a democracy may be effectively driven by the work and influence of technocrats. One must bear in mind that the knowledge attributed to technocrats need not necessarily relate only to hard sciences, as is usually assumed”.
They further contend “that the need for a technocracy within the overall parameters of a democracy stands on the fundamental premise that democracy is rule by the people, who might not always be able to grasp the complexities of a modern world, which in turn calls for experts to articulate and address intricate issues facing a nation” on their behalf.
Societies are evolving at a dizzying pace and so are their complexities. The solutions of two decades ago may be obsolete as at today both in terms of technology and structures of society. Alford and Friedland (1990), commenting on the transition from industrial to post-industrial society, hold that “due to the growing organizational complexity of the society, there is need for both corporate and state planning by the technocrat.”
In the same vein, Bell (1973), Agarwal et. al. (1993), aver that “in the conceptual development of a technocracy, the expert is an indispensable administrative staff in a political system.” And to Owakah and Aswani “the technocrat is the man or woman equipped with specialized knowledge – conceptual tools with which to look at the bigger picture, something that often bypasses the politician.”
This is best summed up in the words of Owakah and Aswani “On the one hand, the technocrat sees no interest but values, performance and goals. He/she is a behind-the-scenes yet powerful assistant.”
I will add that on the other hand, the great political leader must be one capable of understanding the issues, visioning the possibilities and identifying the technical skills necessary to accomplish the mission.
TECHNOCRATS AND POLITICIANS
The “Tom and Jerry” relationship between the politicians and the technocrats is a matter that interests a number of political theorists. Writing on “Development First, Democracy Second: A Commitment on Minimalist Democracy” Mugyenyi (1987) contends that “politicians tend to be populists even in technical issues”. He therefore would recommend “the use of technical experts even if this is disapproved by the populace.”
Ultimately the politician will be called to account in the next election cycle and that becomes the incentive for him to rely on technocrats to succeed. Technocrats, on the other hand, operate on the basis of knowledge and skills.
They are logical and deploy scientific methodologies to problem solving. The Technocrat would define the problems, seek and analyse data to diagnose the problems and proceed with prescriptions that are logically linked to the results from the data. Their fidelity to this methodology can be a source of conflict with populism and demagoguery. We saw this play out over the last one and half years of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States of America. While President Donald Trump sought to downplay the seriousness of the pandemic for electoral reasons, the Technocrats sought epidemiological data to formulate responses including the development of vaccines and some unpopular prescriptions such as the lock downs and mandatory mask wearing.
Based on the foregoing, I fully agree with the assertion of Owakah and Aswani that, “it seems evident that whereas the claims of theoretical democracy are appealing and humane, ignoring the role of the technocrat in charting the path of development presents a problem – the lack of vital knowledge for designing sound development blueprints, and the knowhow for implementing them.”
I also agree with their conclusion that “it is in fact democratic leaders, both in theory and practice, who assume that the general citizenry is ignorant of what they want, is uneducated and would mess up the state structures.”
And that “political elitism which does not want to recognize the limits of their skills is the obstacle to development.”
In the last two decades of civilian governance in Nigeria, I have seen this dynamic in the perspectives that some of us with private sector corporate orientation brought to policy debates with our “core politician” colleagues with eyes always on whether a policy would lead to the next electoral victory. In the circumstance, some policy options with long term benefits to society are sacrificed for those with short term credits even if less beneficial in the long run.
TECHNOCRATS IN GOVERNMENT
During my early years in government, journalists routinely asked me if I was a technocrat or a politician. The presumption in that line of questioning seems to be that both are incompatible in one person. Let me say that Nigeria or Delta State is not unique in this thinking. The role of technocracy in public service and its role in a democracy have come become the subject of analysis and vibrant global debate by citizens, journalists and policymakers. And I suspect that that is perhaps the raison d’etre for the topic I was asked to speak on today
CONCLUSION
Presently, the future of our development lies not in a shift from democracy in the conventional sense to technocracy, where the role of the expert is recognized and appreciated but in the manner that democracy and technocracy are synchronized into a symbiotic relationship.
As a fledgling democracy, our system can benefit greatly by a weighted consideration in favour of technical capacity in the election of leaders like President and Governors to enable them integrate the dictates of political aspirations of the people with the realism of technical requirements for optimal realization of the aspirations.
A lecture delivered by OLOROGUN DAVID EDEVBIE in Asaba, Delta State, at the UI Alumni Lecture 2021, a high profile annual intellectual discourse providing a platform for exchange and dissemination of ideas.
Twitter-@theGBJournal|Facebook-The Government and Business Journal|email: govandbusinessj@gmail.com
