Barzani’s reforms should care for the people, not the system

By Mufid Abdulla:

This is a response to the statement issued by the office of the President of Kurdistan about ‘the first phase of reform’ since March 2011. Few of Barzani’s reforms will achieve what they promise and some will simply be disregarded. We all know that the protestors in Kurdistan generated public debate to force the government to listen to the people. Ever since the uprising began on 17th February 2011, the Kurdish leadership has claimed that it plans to reform the system.

The three main points of the official statement cover: (1)  a review of land allocation for investment projects with investigations into 300 projects; (2) the rule of law, including the establishment of a judicial institute to enhance the training and recruitment of new judges; and (3) administrative matters. In the past few weeks, we are told, a number of corrupt senior KRG officials have been dismissed. This is the nub of Barzani’s reform programme. But it is not real reform, of the kind we desperately need in south Kurdistan.  It is the job of the police and legal system to investigate, arrest, prosecute and convict people who are guilty of corrupt acts.  Merely dismissing corrupt officials is not reform. The investigation of 300 land contracts is not reform. Setting up an institute of law is not reform.  What Barzani is doing is to try and kill the peoples’ appetite and taste for change.

We need to consider what real reform means and whose responsibility it is to carry it out. What should be the priority of the government and officials in implementing these reforms? Which countries have been through this type of reform and how? My review will be brief, seeking to define the means of transformation for several countries that have been through a process of systemic reform in recent decades.

Over the last thirty years, most countries which have attempted such reform have received help from international institutions. Since 1980 some of these reforms have been overseen by the World Bank under the ‘structural adjustment programme’. History has shown the need for strong institutions and leadership to carry through these reforms.

China, Kasakhstan, Africa and Kuwait –  a comparison

In 1980 several African countries adopted the ‘Lagos plan’ for economic development based on a ‘twin plan structure’. In 1985 economic reforms were aimed at reducing external debts and preparing a common platform for action – this plan was supported and adapted by the UN in thirteen sessions.  From 1986 to 1990, reforms included the structural transformation: in this way productivity increased and the general economy benefited. After 1990 the UN set up a new commission for integration, diversification and transformation of these African economies. In this way,  much of Africa has been through four historic stages of change and transformation.

The stunning transformation of China makes it crucial for the world economy to understand how this country has been through so many stages of reform. The process started with the ‘open door policy’ in the late 1970s, leading on, essentially, to 30 years that have changed the world. The most crucial point for scholars and specialists to focus on is the transformation of the Chinese public sector. In China the state carried out this role. The state looked at reform of the public sector in relation to macroeconomic policies (government organisation) and microeconomic policies (accounting and budgeting). The administrative reforms have been a crucial part of the more general process of transforming the Chinese economy and awakening of the “big tiger” (Wilson 1996): a process that comprises 30 years of reform of national and local government by downsizing and modernising (Wong and Bird 2007).

It is impossible to find another example in history of a country that has experienced so complex a process of administrative changes as China has experienced in the last 60 years (Chan 1999). There are some important trends identified in this reform. First, in 1980 local government assumed direct responsibility for the administration of public services (Lin et all 2005) Second, the party authorities were forced to select professionals and specialists based on their technical qualifications and job performance (Burns 1989). Third, the strategy was to downsize central and local bureaucracy.

In the case of Kazakhstan (located in central Asia, it became independent from the old Soviet Union in 1991), there was a transition from communist party administration to a public administration reform model. Kazakhstan has tried to reform the administration inherited from the Soviet Union. There were three key factors in this administrative reform: decentralisation, e-government and civil service reform.

During the past two decades a silent revolution in public sector governance has swept across the globe. This revolution aims to move decision-making for local public services closer to the people (Shah and Thompson 2004). The decentralisation of development policies and programmes to local institutions has been emphasized in developing countries due to increasing recognition that: expansive administrative responsibilities cannot be carried out by central government alone;  socio-economic progress requires active people’s participation; resource mobilisation necessitates local initiatives; and that devolution of power is a pre-condition for a democratic mode of governance. (Haque 1997)

In the effective application of systemic reforms, governments must explore and engage with opportunities both within and outside the public sector. Making public services more efficient and responsive through the involvement of civil society and business organisation is one of the major challenges faced by governments. Public sectors in many countries have embarked on profound change in their processes to confront the problems. It also involves relationships and cooperation among the public sector, private agencies and civil societies regarding the organization of policy processes and the delivery of services (Siddiquee and Mohammed 2007).

One of the central elements in the changing role of the public sector and the construction of a new public administration is the concept of de-centralisation (Hope 2002). Decentralisation can be defined as a transfer of authority or responsibility for decision-making, planning, management or resource allocation from central government to local government. It is also an attempt to respond to local needs as well as the needs of the dis-empowered in particular (Friedmann,1992).

According to Borins (1994) Hope (2002) and Silverman (1992), within the context of the New Public Administration, de-centralisation is seen as the means for:

1. Government to provide high-quality services that citizens value.

2. Increasing managerial autonomy, particularly by reducing central administration.

3. Demanding, measuring or rewarding both organisation and individual performances.

4. Enabling managers to acquire human and technological resources to meet performance targets.

5. Empowering citizens through their enhanced participation in decision-making.

6. Improving economic and managerial efficiency .

Privatisation

Privatisation, or the transfer of state assets to the private sector, is a central component of downsizing. Kuwait is a country which recently went through a transformation, away from the state managing their economy and people. What influenced Kuwait more than anything in the democratisation process were the factors of gender and the media. Recent reforms in these areas influenced the democratisation process, popular participation and the media landscape.(Ferecs,2010)

Finally, Barzani should ask himself how the AKP in Turkey increased its share of the vote from 34.3% in 2002 to 49.9% in 2011. The AKP embarked on major reforms and transformation in Turkey.

Barzani commands the Kurdistan political scene which is due to one factor and the strategic alliance with the PUK. Think of a Shakespearian court, with two sides co-existing nervously while knowing that at some point they will again come to blows. Barzani forces Kurdistan to  allow the freedom of corrupt politicians and the destruction of democracy.

In a programme of real reform, no issues should be beyond discussion. Kurdistan should have weekly debates initiated by economists, lawyers and philosophers. This historic opportunity for real reform is totally lost on an ageing KRG which thought it was dealing with ‘a bunch of kids’. But these leaders are wrong – because their ideas are old, their opinions are old, their minds are old and their spirit is old. People need to beware of the well–heeled traitors although they have begun to confront their mortality. We need them to understand the social reality. From the history of China we can conclude that it will never be too late to make real change, but the most important thing is how you start.

Conclusion

From the above examples and literature reviews, we cannot find any comparison with Barzani’s paltry initiatives. The main priority for reform in the KRG should be the public sector.  Public administration is a central feature of our budget and expenditure. In proportion to our population, we have more civil servants than any other country in the region. In Kurdistan public sector reform has been hindered by having two separate administrations in Sulaymani and Hawler.  Additionally, unfortunately the bulk of these administrative systems are inherited from Saddam’s era: they are not oriented towards serving the people and providing local services.

An effective health service, good standard of schools and the provision of good housing – these are the main services the public sector should efficiently provide.

The current Kurdish cabinet, led by Barham Saleh, cannot carry out these reforms because: (1) they do not have a strong enough institutional base; and (2) there is disunity of the PUK and KDP in administration and decision-making.  Recently some of the decision-making has been taken over by the President of Kurdistan. But reforms should start from the bottom. The ‘reform’ intervention by the President of Kurdistan is nothing more than confusing and misleading for the ordinary people. Real reform should be based on thorough research, designed to find out what people want. I trust the government has received the list of demands raised by the people and the proposals made by the opposition.

References

Burns, J.P (1989) Chiness civil service reform in the 13^th Party congress proposals” The China Quarterly, No 120 pp 739-70

Borins, S. 1994 “Government I Transition : a new paradigm in public administration “ report on the In augural conference and commonwealth association of public administration of management (28  August, Charlottetown.( Prince Edwards Island)

Child, J.and Tse, D.K (2001)”China’s transition and its implications for international business”, Journal of international studies ,vol 32 NO.1 PP5-21

Chana, H.S. (1999) “Downsizing the central government in the central ,the people’s republic of China” Management ,Vol.2 No.3 pp 305-30

Friedmann, J. (1992) “Empowerment :The alternative development” ,Blackwell, Cambridge ,USA

Ferecs, Tursoczy (2010) “Kuwait democratization in process five factors of democratization of their state in Kuwait”. Lund University ,Department of Arab and Middle eastern studies .Bachelor Thesis

Hope, K.R (2002) “The new public management, a perspective from Africa” in McLaughlin et all in “New public management: current trends and future prospects”, Rutledge, London and NEW York.

Hope, K.R (2001) “The new public management; context and practice in Africa”, International Public Management Journal Vol.4 No.2

Haque, M.S. (1997) “Local governance in developing nations ,and re-examining the question  of accountability”, Regional development Dialoque ,Vol18 No.2 pp iiixxiii

Lin, J.Y, Rna, T. and  Mingsing, L. (2005) “Decentralisation and local governance in the context of China’s transition”, Perspective, Vol 6 No 2 pp 25-36

Silvermann, J.M. (1992) “Public sector decentralisation, economic policy and sector investment programmes”, Technical paper NO 188.World Bank, Washington D .C

Shah, A. and Thompson, T. (2004) “Implementing decentralized local governance : a treacherous road with potholes, detours and road closures” World Bank Policy research working paper No 3353mThe World Bank, Washington ,DC

Siddiquee, N.A and Mohammed M.Z. (2007) “Paradox of public sector reforms in Malaysia – a good governance perspective”, Public Administrative Quarterly,Vol.31,pp 284-313

Wilson, D. (1996) “China – the Big Tiger, a Nation Awakes”, Abacus, London

Wong, C.P.W. and Bird, R.M.(2007) “China’s Fiscal System: a Work in Progress I”, Brandt ,L. and Rowski, T. (Eds) “China’s Great Transformation: Origins, Mechanism, and Consequences of the Post-Reform Economic Boom”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge