Sami Mahroum* says the politicisation of Lebanon’s Public Service has brought with it nepotism, corruption, incompetence and indifference.
When asked why did he not act upon information he’d received about the ammonium nitrate stored at Beirut’s port that later blew up much of the city centre, Lebanese President, Michel Aoun (pictured centre) said the port “lies outside my jurisdiction”.
That answer echoes a sentiment prevalent among most present and former holders of public office in Lebanon.
Whenever pushed into a corner by questions about their ineptitude, Lebanese officials answer: “Ma khallouna (they wouldn’t let us)”.
It is a common joke to refer to the entire political class as the Ma Khallouna party, and politicians have only themselves to blame.
In 1959, Lebanon created a Civil Service Council tasked with professionalising public administration and neutralising it from political bickering.
The problem began in 1989, when Lebanon’s political leaders met in the Saudi Arabian city of Taif to form a new national pact that would put an end to the 15-year civil war.
The resulting Taif Agreement stipulated the elimination of sectarianism from politics and public sector jobs.
However, for an interim period this would exclude “the top-level jobs and equivalent jobs which shall be shared equally by Christians and Muslims”.
What was supposed to be a short-term exemption in a phased plan of eliminating sectarian politics became instead an entrenched political tradition.
To this day, Lebanon’s top jobs are allocated with sectarian power-sharing in mind Particular jobs are allocated to specific sects.
As a consequence, Civil Service appointments have also become political appointments that bypass the Civil Service Council.
This process has accelerated as competing political forces fought over Civil Service appointments — including at the Port of Beirut.
The politicisation process manifests itself not only in recruitment but also in management procedures such as dismissal, promotion and transfer.
The Lebanese Civil Service has by now become a complex web of what political scientists call ‘principal-agent’ relationships.
A principal-agent relationship is one in which someone (the principal) engages another person (the agent) to carry out a task on their behalf and, in doing so, delegates a certain amount of decision-making authority to the agent.
Citizens entrust politicians to deliver certain goods and services, and politicians entrust Civil Servants to help them deliver these goods and services.
The principal-agent relationship, however can give rise to something political scientists call the ‘principal-agent problem’.
Agents have their own interests, and can be selfish. The deep and extensive politicisation of the Civil Service in Lebanon has created an excessive form of this problem whereby multiple principals and multiple agents compete against one another, at the expense of the public good.
Two days after the blast at the port French President, Emmanuel Macron made a hasty visit to Beirut to call for a new political order for the country.
Donor countries and institutions have made economic reform a condition for the provision of financial assistance to Lebanon.
However, neither economic nor political reforms will be effective if the principal-agent problem of Lebanon’s public administration is not addressed.
What the Republic of Lebanon urgently needs is what the 19th-century German sociologist and philosopher, Max Weber called ‘neutral competence’ — professional Civil Servants who are responsive to the public and not to politicians.
That means that the starting point for Lebanese recovery has to be the implementation what was in the Taif Agreement more than 30 years ago, by making all appointments to the Civil Service apolitical and subject to administrative procedures and technical skills only.
Public Services in many countries today are assessed through numerous performance indicators, which make it possible to hold Civil Servants accountable and ensure they are directly responsive to public feedback.
Luckily, there are some good experiences from which Lebanon can learn.
In Dubai, public sector institutions are evaluated directly by the public through an annual Dubai Customer Happiness Index.
Elsewhere in the United Arab Emirates, Government Agencies and Departments are assessed and evaluated through professional administrative procedures.
Excellence awards and prizes are handed out annually to top performers.
Political intervention becomes necessary only to ensure Public Service responsiveness to public expectations.
Recruitment for top Civil Servant jobs in Lebanon needs to change immediately to become independent of political manipulation.
In France, the top 800 positions in public administration are pulled from professional bodies and elite training schools, especially from the National School of Administration.
In the United Kingdom, recruitment is organised autonomously by each authority in a decentralised procedure according to merit.
Even where they are political appointments, as is the case in the United States, checks and balances are put in place, such as the requirement for approval of all presidential appointments from Congress.
In countries with weak governance systems like Lebanon, the politicisation of Civil Service recruitment and management has brought with it nepotism, corruption, incompetence and indifference.
Add to that the principal agent problem that exists between some members of the political class and foreign Governments and the conditions that led to the horrific explosion at Beirut’s port become self-evident.
*Sami Mahroum is a Senior Fellow at the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut and a professor at the Free University of Brussels.
This article first appeared in the online edition of the National Newspaper, covering events in the Middle East.
