Preamble:
According to literature, Think Tanks exist across the globe and are presented
in variant forms and shapes. Although government type Think tanks are common,
generally TTs emerge spontaneously and often outside government establishments
and without government influence or protection. Even if they are within
government calls, they are assigned specific tasks in non conflicting roles and
their establishment supported by law. Government TTs are often reactive in
nature but in the long run become institutionalised drawing on meager
government resources after assuming legitimacy.
Question:
What were the triggers for setting up the Gambia National Think Tank and under
what law/s was it established?
It
is not in doubt that even after 5 months of its conception, there is still NO
Terms of Reference (TOR) to provide an operational guide and direction for the
Think Tankers. As is characteristic of most Gambians, we have already begun
measuring the Think tankers against the expected tasks without confirming what
their job entails as a body. Of course there are a few who have started asking
the fundament questions vis-à-vis what this group should deliver in the
interest of the wider (Gambian) society. I’m sure most of us were bewildered
and carried by the list of people that constituted the group especially names
that were preceded by DR (Doctor) lined up at the top of the listing (Page 2,
The Voice of Friday 30th July 2017). We have high regard for these people and
the entire group and I am sure they are also asking – “what are people’s
expectations of us and how do we respond…”
The
same release dotted… “The Think Tank is aimed at facilitating the formulation
and national knowledge development processes of the National Development Plan
(NDP) which will cover the period 2017 – 2019 (I assume this is the duration
for the Barrow and coalition administration)…” and continued with a list of
areas for the group’s engagement during this period. Perhaps this list was
provided by the group to the paper during their inauguration. This list more or
less covers all the sectors and units that the government currently administers
and under the guardianship of an established and comprehensive civil service
recognised by law (a Constitutional Provision, Chapter XI, and Sections
166-171). Without a clear TOR delineating the two functions, I would conclude
that the job of the two certainly will overlap and may become tricky for the
newly established TT without a legal anchor. If it persists to exist, I see the
TT becoming another Senior Management Team (SMT) within the Civil Service
establishment illegitimately. All the ministries have departments/units and the
requisite management structures, planning units responsible for research; and
what about the Gambia Bureau of Statistics (GBoS)…? – do we want to make these
institutions and departments redundant and pay them for opening their offices
in the morning and locking them in the afternoon. Obviously, I think government
cannot afford this cost and should not. I don’t think we lack data in the country,
the problem is with utilisation and how we develop the culture of making data
the basis for development planning.
Another
conflicting area for this group is their role in advising government in policy
areas intimated in Fatoumata Tambajang’s speech during the inauguration. This
function is the responsibility of cabinet, the collective of ministers and as
provided by law. Each minister gathers such information from her/his team – the
permanent secretaries and their staff with the requisite skills sets. Who is
better positioned to provide such data and information than these legally
established ministries. Are we confused? Also she said the TT will validate the
three year national development plan. The plan is a national document and the
validation should be a national responsibility and this raises the issues of
inclusion and exclusion errors in our planning process.
The
Finance Minister, Amadou Sanneh has just presented the revised 2017 budget
estimates (showing a declining trend) and the impacts on certain sectors.
Development is holistic and integrated. We must not therefore, focus our
attention on certain issues no matter how much they appeal to us and forget
other areas needed to support the particular issue.
It
is my view that Barrow and the coalition government cannot afford creating new
structures that will add new demands and put undue pressure on the already
dwindling and overstretched budget. Remember, while there is no free
money/budget, there is also no free service. The people identified for this
function will have to be compensated as they have responsibilities like any
other Gambian. If they say they will provide their services for free, I am
saying that is flawed and is untenable.
The
focus should be on the reforms Barrow promised to undertake soon after his
election. And in this case the reform of the civil service – make it better
(streamline & save budget), motivated (pay them well and create new
opportunities), efficient (capable & professional) and competitive
(establish a right choice supermarket) etc. Of course we should not forget the
other reform areas – constitutional reform (all encompassing and not
piecemeal), institutional reform, judicial reform and overall systems reform
(e.g. tax/revenue), etc. This must be conducted by people or bodies independent
of the office holders of the various entities. Hence the urgent need for
establishing the relevant commissions, committees or task forces as
appropriate.
Agenda
setting: The launching of the Gambia National Think Tank was held under the
theme: “Promoting Nationally Driven Development agenda through Democracy, Good
Governance and Rule of Law” could be seen to be timely. At least it is a new
agenda for the Barrow administration and perhaps considered in light of its
ability to appeal to donors especially the World Bank and International
Monetary. However, on reflection I know this is an old agenda and we have
created a new “jar” to pour in fresh water. This agenda was in response to Aid
Effectiveness and Paris Agenda for development (2005) implementation evaluated,
The HIPIC initiative and the construction of the PRSPs with the bank and Fund,
even the participatory processes introduced in the 80s/90s aimed at community
driven national development plans etc, etc. Or do we want bring back the
national planning commission? These are centrally planning processes and rarely
impact the periphery and the poor.
Participation
and Transparency are key principles of good governance and democracy….
Question
1: How much consultation (spread and depth) was done on the National Think Tank
before its actual launch…?
Question
2: The location of the group is still hanging as the office of vice president
continues to be vacant without a post holder. Where will this Think Tank be
located ultimately and appropriately….? The group needs to be connected if it
is an imperative structure for our development process.
I
will pause here for now and only engage this issue if it becomes absolutely
necessary…
