It was evident, when this government came into power last year, that it would sail in troubled waters. Unfavourable and unpredictable economic and trade conditions, combined with ten years of mismanagement, could only mean hardships for the population. Some factors are located outside its jurisdiction. Fair enough. What remains, however, very much within the control of this government is ensuring the ethical and competent stewardship of institutions. This is achievable by appointing directors who demonstrate an unquestioned and unquestionable track record of professional competence and leadership in the required field of expertise. If the recent wave of nominations in key educational institutions is anything to go by, this government is failing miserably. External forces cannot be blamed. No, this is totally and squarely on you.

Parastatal organisations have often been restyled as the favourite playgrounds of ministers in terms of nominations to the post of director and chairperson. The nominations can serve multiple purposes: a form of payback for active participation/donation in the electoral campaign; a means of assuring ethnic constituencies that their interests are safeguarded; a reward to a loyal friend with or without benefits, or even a long-time ally. The director's or chairperson’s gratitude is ensured as is a commitment for the institution to “bend the knee” to the Minister and his agenda. Alongside the minister, who has to be ‘seen’ as “active” and “innovative”, these political and mostly partisan nominees may also covet the media visibility required to legitimise their position. It is a big parade. We have seen the show before; it no longer exasperates but simply bores. Many such nominees are just bidding their time until the contract ends, bonuses are earned and privileged status and power enjoyed. Most employees publicly comply and privately complain. Others demonstrate a preoccupation to preserve position and power. A few even quickly ingratiate themselves by circulating and harvesting information on behalf of the power in place to identify and silence any dissidents. In the main, the policy of divide and rule is the preferred survival mode pulling the institution down the rabbit hole of workplace politics. We know the routine. It is exhausting to watch and experience. The unfortunate offshoot is the loss of precious institutional energy needed to rethink the vision, mission and methods to advance the cause of a more just and caring society.

Parastatal bodies were set up precisely to insulate their work from excessive political influence. The scientific and technical integrity of these institutions ensures that they are able to work towards their goals unfettered by short term electoral considerations. Change and deep transformations take time beyond the few years that any minister has to make a significant dent in the system. Securing the required competence by means of transparent, informed and justified process of selecting institutional leaders is the only way we can elevate their status, improve their efficiency and achieve desirable outcomes.

This current government spent ten years denouncing, criticising and yet reinstating those very practices of placing possibly incompetent, rapacious and divisive leaders at the helm of institutions. Their selection and appointment are based on criteria which have not been disclosed presumably because they may be as obscure as the night in Siberia. It seems unlikely that some ministers would agree to table in Parliament the curriculum vitae (CV) of all these freshly appointed directors and chairpersons, and perhaps compare them with four to five staff within these very organisations.

For example, would the CV of the current director of the Mauritius Institute of Education (MIE) stand to scrutiny and compare favourably to the CVs of the top five senior staff or even administrative staff. The current deputy director shouldered the leadership role for many months with all the responsibilities it entailed but without the power which was and still is deflected to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry. Why are parastatal bodies like the MIE systematically infantilised and disrespected? Ministers of education are in office for less than five years, the MIE has existed for the past 50 years, survived multiple governments, trained over 35,000 teachers, empowered women, conceptualised, enacted and enabled reform projects and policy change.

Recently, despite a deliberate attempt to exclude the MIE current reform, the task was reassigned to an MIE staff. Teaching experience, however varied, useful and glorified, was insufficient to design and lead systemic reforms. The scientific and technical knowledge required to understand and explain the why and how of the proposed transformation and translate it in practice was clearly located within the fold of the MIE.

To thus suggest an equivalence between experience de terrain at the school level coupled with a few years as a “research” officer in an organisation concerned primarily with school assessment, as opposed to formal training as a credentialled academic with experience of leading teacher education programmes at levels 7, 8 and 9 of the National Qualifications Framework, is both ludicrous and dangerous. In the best-case scenario, it betrays a narrow and naive understanding of the work of any institution of higher learning. At worst, it reveals a certain cynicism that a 60-0 score in the election is carte blanche for an abuse of power and position by ministers who use their prerogative to nominate directors and chairpersons to erode public confidence in the present government. Would it ever be acceptable that a paralegal staff becomes a judge overnight because a minister has thus chosen to exercise discretionary power? Never. Hopefully. Legal institutions are valued, educational ones, by the looks of it... not so much.

Whilst it is true that some previous MIE directors did not possess a doctoral degree, they were, however, publicly recognised intellectuals with demonstrated leadership skills in teacher education. It is rumoured that the current MIE director was happy to note that none of the union executives of the MIE had a doctorate and commented to them that when she meets people who have such a qualification, she is pleased she does not have one. Does her judgement also hold for the minister who appointed her?

One does not need a doctorate to understand why the MIE union has not been granted an appointment with the minister despite having requested a meeting nine months ago. It is a matter of public knowledge that the minister has a soured connection with the MIE because of an unfortunate episode of institutional history illustrating how subservient directors, bending to the pressure of ministers to rescind the contract of a part time lecturer because of political rivalry, has caused irreversible damage to the institution’s reputation. The Minister of Tertiary Education also bore the brunt of this political rivalry but he chose, as he should, to be the bigger person and let institutions get on with their work instead of ousting directors the moment he assumed office.

One doesn't have to look far to see how any objection to the appointment of the current director can be construed as emanating from conservatism, self-promotion and in breeding. Let us put these arguments to rest. Given how the last director was irreverently told that the new minister “did not want to work with him”, few seasoned staff would risk ill-treatment at the hands of politicians. The few who could contend for the post were sidelined for reasons not associated with merit and competence but rather “extra-curricular” motives. The contention is not against having an outsider to the MIE assume the headship of the institution. The idea is generally welcomed. But we are asking for someone who can understand the mission of the MIE as not being limited to the Foundation programme, who knows what it means to be an academic, who can stand shoulder to shoulder with other heads of higher education institutions, who not only talks of strategic vision but knows the powerful role teacher education and educational research can play in the shifting and generative landscape of higher education. Is it too much to ask for a director who greets staff, who acknowledges collaborators, who does not engage in gossip or make disparaging comments about any colleague; a director who can have an informed conversation with visiting fellows, professors and VCs; a director who can offer more in the first meeting than providing new laptops; a director who has a sense of the investment needed to productively disrupt and support institutional learning; a director whose knowledge of AI extends beyond what Chat GPT can offer, who knows the standards of academic and scholarly practice from within?

The MIE has always been subject to political/external pressure because education and teacher preparation are central to our aspirations as a society (this is the rhetoric at least). But despite the pressure, previous directors have kept the internal affairs of the institute under the purview of the Directorate as it should be. This allowed for flexibility, responsiveness and a capacity to distinguish clearly between academic and administrative processes. A director who cannot legitimately assert authority internally because of weak competence will always run to the higher authority of the ministry to validate all decisions even at the cost of institutional democracy and good governance. This sounds the death knell for any institution of higher learning whose autonomy is critical to its ability to respond to contextual change.

Anyone who has led (in) organisations knows this: the most impoverished form of power is one that is solely conferred by position and has none of the authority which can only emanate from established relevant expertise. If the minister was so convinced of the strategic leadership abilities of the current MIE director, why was she not given the opportunity to exercise it in her own institution, the Mauritius Examinations Syndicate (MES)? Perhaps this unfortunate state of affairs is the reason for a five-year electoral cycle – it is the longest unconscious incompetence can endure.

Mr. Fair and Impartial