Will Zanu-PF Have Immoderate Influence Over Government?Oct 01, 2018
There has always been a lingering view that Zanu-PF plays an ‘excessive’ part in government, but there has been little desire to know better how Zanu-PF interfaces with government. The recent deployment of several ministers who did not make it into the new cabinet to the ruling Zanu-PF headquarters on a full-time basis raised much interest and curiosity. At least 11 departments of the party are now expected to be managed by full-time employees who include ex-ministers.
This bureaucratic configuration of Zanu-PF is quite a significant thing. The structure has typically been set up to help organise and run the party membership and the deployees in government - it is then a utilitarian resource for the party in government.
The major questions that come to mind are; How close should the interface be between Zanu-PF and government? Will Zanu-PF capture and use government for its particular goals? Will the executive be tightly controlled by the party? Will the executive pursue policies that originate from the party? What role will Central Committee and Politburo play?
Zanu-PF has effected these seismic changes due to the prominent challenges it has faced: poor delivery of manifesto promises by government bureaucracy, wafer-thin presidential election victory, loss of some stronghold support to opposition, and so on. In the face of these challenges they had no option but to appoint full-time senior party leaders so that they monitor the implementation of government policies and programmes and invariably turn around the fortunes of the party.
The paradigm shift in Zanu-PF involves a procedural diffusion process of government mechanisms, practice, behaviour, and orientation into Zanu-PF - internal practice, policy development and implementation. They have mirrored the government administration structure. This transformation of the party into an institutionalised and professional entity naturally results in a shift of party-state interrelations and interpenetration. The boundaries between the ruling party and government will inevitably become volatile, fluid and uncertain.
Since electors vote for parties and only incidentally for individuals, and since parties are involved in the government formation and composition process, the conclusion that the government is party government seems inescapable. Zanu-PF by winning a majority through a competitive representation, gained the status of crucial ‘transmission belt’ of the democratic will. Their normal expectation is that they should gain an upper hand on the government and use the government to implement their manifesto. The dominance of Zanu-PF party over government - far from being an ‘evil’ becomes a critical condition of true democracy.
In the run up to 2018 elections, Zanu-PF constructed and published its election manifesto which was shaped by its ideology, the party internal structure and preferences. After being elected, the party has to negotiate policy orientations, programmes and implementation with the government so that there is minimal variation from the original ideological goals of the party. The success of the government on manifesto implementation is seen central by the party, and the party sees itself as the most competent and potent actor to implement the manifesto. The self-perception of governing parties is centrally shaped by an idea of being part of the state or even the state.
Concerns have been raised that the direction of influence will go from Zanu-PF to government. But the fact that the influence could take place in both ways seems overlooked. The government, far from being always the obedient servants of Zanu-PF, can on the contrary, supervise and even control Zanu-PF.
We cannot rule out the possibility for the relationship of influence to go from government to the party as well as from the party to the government. More interestingly, both types of influence may be so evenly balanced that they cancel each other out. The party-government relationship must also include the possibility for parties and governments to declare a truce and go about their own business independently. We could possibly witness true autonomy between Zanu-PF and government, as each side realises that it cannot force the other to accept its wishes.
Zanu-PF has a substantial opportunity to have a say in decision-making in governmental processes through agency and patronage. However, the government must maintain some degree of autonomy and in that pursuit find means of reducing the impact or influence of Zanu-PF on them.
The limits of party influence on government may take different forms which may be intentional or unintentional. Firstly, some ministers may be more powerful and refuse to adopt party policies. Secondly, the President and not the party selects the ministers, and as such they may owe more allegiance to the President than to the party. The third limitation may emanate from the fact that some ministers are chosen from outside the ranks of the party.
Similarly, Zanu-PF influence may be limited with respect to patronage, as this may or may not be distributed by the party itself. It may be distributed, in part at least, by the members of the government who may follow their own inclinations rather than party instructions. The party may be helped in the process, but more as a passive instrument than as an actor. Lastly, after a general election the government may follow the party programme, but after some time the party programme may be toned down, modified or entirely altered. In such cases, the party may be presented with a fait accompli.
The Government and Zanu-PF are two systems with variable degrees of overlap. The actors of the two systems are to an extent, but to an extent only, identical. It will be interesting to see how the symbiosis between the two systems will evolve given the context of a re-configured Zanu-PF structure. But it is my fervent hope that they will act in complementarity and at the same time respect each others boundaries, influence and authority.
‘Task of moving Zim ahead not only for President, Govt’Sep 09, 2018
South Africa-based Zimbabwean economist, Vusi Nyamazana — who has developed a government policy tracker eponymously called MnangagwaMeter following the ushering in of the new dispensation last year — says President Mnangagwa achieved a lot in his first eight months before the July 30 elections. With a new mandate, President Mnangagwa is set to achieve more, but it is the duty of citizens to also take part in the development of the country. Nyamazana says his barometer will help Government and citizens stay in the loop in terms of the country’s trajectory in the next five years. The Herald’s Political Editor Tichaona Zindoga (TZ) caught up with Nyamazana (VN) to discuss the initiative.
TZ: Can you tell us about the polimeter; how it started and what you seek to achieve with this kind of initiative?
VN: The whole idea started when the new dispensation was ushered in because there were high expectations as Zimbabweans and the international community wanted to know what the President would be doing and what he would achieve in the caretaker term.
So, the idea of the polimeter was to try to collect all pronouncements by the President in terms of promises and track the progress towards the fulfilment of the same. So, in a way it was more of an informational tool for citizens so that citizens will know what the Government is doing and they can easily comment where progress is made and criticise where the Government fails to honour its promises.
The other aspect is to sensitise the Government that citizens are monitoring what they are doing and in a way can improve in policy implementation.
In a nutshell, the idea behind this is to highlight Government progress or lack thereof, and also provide an interface with citizens through their monitorial function.
TZ: How do you collect your indices and make measurements and how reliable is this barometer?
VN: The meter is reliable because it is fact-based, that is we take promises from official channels or other sources that we can all agree that they represent true positions of Government, for example the Press. The information, therefore, comes from inauguration speeches, information on the Government websites, fiscal and monetary policies and other official pronouncements. These are quite authoritative sources.
On tracking the promises, we use the media, especially The Herald and The Sunday Mail, as papers of record and they also report accurately on what the Government is doing. The information is factual. We don’t put any opinion on the information: it’s just taking facts as they are, collecting them and consolidating so that we have all information on one platform.
TZ: You monitored the first seven to eight months of the transitional period to the July elections. Can you tell us the highlights and what you found in your assessment?
VN: The President hit the ground running because it looks like he had a clear mandate, when it related to governance he was sure where the problems were and came up with solutions and as soon as he came in he put in several structures in place and some reforms which are more administrative, especially in the Public Service and Finance ministries. He made sure that it had to be business as usual and there had to be coherence.
In our assessment, he split his duties into two: governance and economy and we can safely conclude that governance did extremely well, but on the economy he inherited an economy that was already in trouble, so any programme would have lagged behind. The programmes introduced through the budget and monetary policy were quite important. However, some issues such as the cash liquidity issues are related to structural problems such as production and export.
Some programmes are likely to be concluded in the early days of this Second Republic. Obviously, we are looking forward to them being actioned in the new term.
TZ: The Government of Zimbabwe has previously used some indicators and devices for monitoring and evaluation of performance. What is your comment on the general policy monitoring in Zimbabwe and what should be done with the new administration?
VN: There has always been a monitoring policy even during the Mugabe era. However, when President Mnangagwa came in, he came up with the idea of 100-day cycles to be implemented across Government, at ministries, departments and all parastatals. They in turn came up with 100-day plans. There were some successes, but a lot needs to be done in reorientation of the public service because these bureaucrats may not have been used to a new work ethic and way of doing things.
It is rather regrettable that some departments failed to pick some low hanging fruits. We need to take policy monitoring seriously because it is the nerve centre of Government and resource it adequately. There is need for clarity in the establishment of monitoring and evaluation entities in Government and that monitoring and evaluation at national level should cascade down to lower levels of governance.
TZ: You want to target Government delivery and in particular the performance of the President. But there have been concerns about citizens and the private sector not playing ball. What would be your comment on the role of civil society and the private sector in ensuring that Zimbabwe goes forward?
VN: The task of moving Zimbabwe ahead is not only for the President and his Government. Every citizen should contribute in their own special way. Looking at other non-state actors like the CSOs and private sectors they also have a critical role to play in making sure that service delivery happens. It will be necessary to track what the private sectors and others are doing in contributing towards the global goals that the President has set.
TZ: Earlier we discussed about the eight months that you monitored given the momentum that you saw, what would be your prediction on President Mnangagwa`s capacity to deliver in the next five years?
VN: The outlook is positive, in the first eight months President Mnangagwa had to inherit a bureaucracy that had its own issues and wasn’t that dynamic. In this full-term I think he has more room to recruit on merit and have everyone focus on what needs to be done. I believe performance management will take centre stage, chances are high that he will make much more progress than in the first eight months.
Elected MP’s: Nowhere to RunSep 04, 2018
New Members of Parliament will be sworn in recently. Each one of them came to us with their own promises and those belonging to political parties, they also promised us a number of things their political party was committing to do once in office. As voters, members of our constituency and/or citizens, are we doing enough to hold our representatives accountable and keeping them honest? How many times have you contacted and/or made an effort to contact your elected representatives, be it the Member of Parliament or councillor on any general or particular issue?
The sole idea behind representative democracy is that the citizens should be able to hold their elected representatives accountable for their activities. Citizens should be made aware of the performance of their elected representatives in parliament and constituencies. Armed with this information citizens can be able to make informed choices when election time comes.
In order to assess an MPs performance, it is first imperative to understand the roles and responsibilities of MPs. MPs primarily have four roles: 1. Make laws 2. Represent the interests of the people of their constituency 3. Oversee the functioning of the executive 4. Keep the government in check and pass the budget. As a result of this lack of knowledge, people think that the only role of MPs is to take measures for the development of their constituency. Due to this lack of knowledge, people start expecting their MPs to single-handedly provide drinking water, lay the roads, build up primary health care centres etc. Also, citizens sometimes have extremely unreasonable expectations from their MPs- they expect them to pay the school fees of their children, attend weddings, funerals etc.
MPs in our country often operate without overview and little is known about their performance to serve their constituencies and people of the country. It is very important to analyse how well the MPs are discharging the responsibilities they are legally mandated to perform. There is lack of transparency in the system. Even the basic quantifiable information about an MPs performance is not available in the public domain. We need to have quantifiable entities like their attendance in sessions, questions asked, participation in debates, service on committees etc.
We should have MP report cards to enable the citizens to gauge the performance of their MPs. There is need for quantifiable methods and other parameters which are difficult to quantify but are very essential to gauge the performance of an MP like how well did the MP represent the interests of the people of his constituency, what difference has he made to its development, his delivery of promises during the election campaign etc.
Elected representatives are accountable to their constituents and ideally work to represent the needs, interests and aspirations of their constituents. However, experience has shown that in most cases elected representatives tend to move away from their core mandate to serve their own interests and/or their membership interests to a particular group such as political parties or influential individuals such as the president. This has in turn had significant implications on individuals, families, the constituency and society as a whole.
Sometimes, especially if there is no information available to us, it can be difficult to conduct a meaningful performance review of our MPs. This is where access to public information and honest communication is significant. However, there are a number of questions we could ask ourselves about our MPs:
- Since your MP was voted into office, what bills has he/she sponsored/moved in Parliament?
- How many bills has s/he voted yes or no to? And how have these bills affected you, your constituency and entire country?
- Is your MP speaking in Parliament and representing your interests and needs and that of your constituency? Or s/he is representing his/her own needs/interests and that of their party or party leadership?
- How many times has your MP visited the constituency?
- How many times has your MP held consultative meetings before and after parliament?
- Do you have access to your MP? Can you call or email him/her? And, if you call and/or email, does he/she respond or contact you back?
- What development projects has your MP initiated in your constituency?
- What existing projects is your MP helping move forward?
- Do you trust your MP?
- What do you want to see change?
- What do you want to see improve? Do you think resources in your constituency are being used and managed well.
- Is your MP paying attention to the use and management of resources in your constituency?
- If you were to honestly rate (give points) your MP, between 1 to 5, 1=extremely poor. 2=poor, 3=good, 4=very good, and 5=excellent, what number would you give your MP?
- If you were to vote again today, would you vote for the same MP? And why?
From their confirmation, we need to reflect and ask ourselves some hard questions: how has our MP performed since they were elected in office? Are they adhering to their campaign promises or they have abandoned us in pursuit of their own interests and agendas? What have they done and/or not done so far and why? Conducting performance reviews of our elected representatives is our responsibility as individuals and as members of our constituency to ensure transparency and accountability.
President Mnangagwa Need to Publicly Issue Ministerial Mandate LettersSep 04, 2018
President Mnangagwa need to present each new Cabinet Minister with a Mandate Letter (a to-do-list). In an effort to promote openness and transparency, he also need to make these letters available to the public.
Ministerial Mandate letters may not seem like a big deal. But they are significant.
But what is a mandate letter and what is its purpose?
What Is A Mandate Letter
A mandate letter is, well, a letter, from the President to his or her Minister. The letter outlines what the President wants the Minister to do or accomplish over the five year term. It is the official authority for the Minister to do something: create a policy, develop a program, form a strategy, consult stakeholders, propose and make changes to legislation or regulation, and so on. The Minister should in turn provide departments and agencies under his or her portfolio an outline of the broad expectations with respect to service and performance priorities.
The President does not necessarily need to take pen to paper and generate the letters himself. They have to be a subject matter of intense negotiation between the new Ministers and the Ministry Directors. This negotiation process is important because it serves to align the views of the Minister with those of directors on key government priorities.
These letters are important, because they are like instruction manuals for how the Minister will work in the coming years, how he or she will give direction to public servants in his or her ministry and the tone and ways in which the ministry will fulfil the mandate. The Minister will work with his or her Deputy Minister and Directors to ensure that policy direction, priorities flow down throughout the ministry and that public servants can begin working on various projects, initiatives, programs and policies which will help to fulfil this mandate. If done properly, the letters can provide a clear indication where a government is headed.
Purpose of Mandate Letters
Ministerial Key Performance Indicators have always been produced, but these documents have typically been confidential and not released to the public. Releasing them publicly will herald progress towards government’s overall commitment to accountability and transparency. Much of it is about striking a different tone, one that stresses openness, transparency and accountability. The letters may become the new way of demonstrating that a government is modern, open and different from the old, closed-door that President Mnangagwa replaced.
The letters will remind Ministers of their responsibility to keep Zanu-PF’s election commitments and to operate their ministries in an open and transparent manner. They signal that the Ministers will be held to higher performance and ethical standards. If the government wants the citizenry to trust them, they need to trust the citizenry. It is important that they acknowledge mistakes when they make them. Zimbabweans do not expect government to be perfect - they expect government to be honest, open and sincere in its efforts to serve the public interest.
Publicly disclosed mandate letters have the potential to achieve an even greater impact on the citizenry. These letters will provide Zimbabwean’s with greater insight into the government’s priorities. However, mandate letters do not, and cannot cover everything. For instance, they do not cover “business as usual”- the day-to-day minutia, tasks and duties public servants carry-out to fulfil the administrative mandate of ministries. Yes they may not represent an exhaustive list of commitments but it can be anticipated that the government will proceed by adding new priorities where and when appropriate.
The letters are sometimes annoyingly vague, but they can also be surprisingly specific, providing voters with a clear picture of what a particular Cabinet Minister is setting out to do. Most importantly, they are the yard stick by which we will be able to measure the success of President Mnangagwa’s term to see if our confidence in his leadership, as demonstrated at the polls was well-placed.
Mandate letters also tell government bureaucrats in which direction to row. And they can increase accountability behind the scenes too, because bureaucrats no longer have to guess which issues the government considers top priorities. Those mandate letters are actually a significant leap forwards in giving everybody a sense of where the government is leaning. The mandate letters provide a form of system “signalling” an alignment of the system around particular policy goals.
Ministers will be held to account for every promise, every commitment and every instruction they receive and they will be expected to “track and report on the progress” of commitments.
Acceptance of this proposed idea will signify a triumph for open government, for transparency and accountability — for real change, if you will.
Gov’t Permanent Secretaries: The Unsung HeroesSep 04, 2018
While governments and ministers come and go, the permanent secretary remains the permanent custodian of permanent problems.
- Former senior Canadian permanent secretary
One of the relatively unknown heroes and heroines in the civil service are the permanent secretaries. If the government’s entire workforce was taken over by a robot army, the few remaining human employees would be permanent secretaries. They are simply the unsung heroes of the government. They are the cogs in the machine that keeps it running. The performance of permanent secretaries will come into more scrutiny because President Mnangagwa has called on the civil service to demonstrate tangible results. Permanent secretaries will be expected to fortify monitoring, evaluation and reporting on policies, projects and programmes. The department of policy monitoring and evaluation should put in place better capacity for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) or develop M&E where it does not exist.
We have seen news articles hinting on government’s crackdown on the civil service as it emerged that 13 permanent secretaries and dozens of other senior bureaucrats are facing the chop. Interest and curiosity has been generated on the role that permanent secretaries play in government. I will attempt to assuage the interest by explaining what they do.
The permanent secretary is the administrative head of a department or ministry. They are “permanent” in the sense that they are normally career civil servants who have tenure beyond the life of any particular government. They ensure administrative continuity, without which governing becomes unpredictable and difficult. The permanent secretary is inescapably caught between the partisan political world of the minister and the rational, impartial and scientific world of the public servant.
The permanent secretary has four basic roles: providing policy advice to the minister, implementing ministerial policy priorities, leading the department as administrative head, and participating in the collective management of the public service as a whole.
As principal policy advisor to the minister, the permanent secretary is expected to provide objective advice on policy issues, on the government’s options in dealing with them, and on the implications of each option. Policy advice is always based on a combination of hard evidence and intuitive assessment. The role of principal policy adviser does not necessarily require the permanent secretary to be an expert in the policy area in question. Rather the requisite expertise lies in ensuring the department can synthesise the relevant evidence and technocratic advice from elsewhere, develop a thorough understanding of ministerial objectives, and assess the political as well as technical and financial feasibility of any potential policy decisions. The minister, of course, has other policy advisers. They are now able to access policy advice and ideas from a wider range of other sources – such as special advisers, think tanks, consultancies, better-resourced political-party policy units, and more extensive international links.
As policy implementer, the permanent secretary has to ensure that the department responds to ministerial priorities and that the administration of the department is carried out in a way that reflects the minister’s direction and interests. Successful implementation of policies and projects makes or breaks many ministerial careers. From time to time, this may require implementing policies which the permanent secretary has reservations about, or may even have advised against. Nonetheless, as a loyal public servant, the permanent secretary has the duty to respect the authority of the democratically elected political leader, and to carry out his or her policies to the fullest extent possible.
As head of a department, and ‘manager of the day-to-day business’ of the department, the permanent secretary must direct and manage, on the ministers behalf and within the law, a department of government. In part, this means ensuring that the work of the department is carried out effectively and efficiently. The permanent secretary must ensure that the key tasks of planning, organising, execution, control, and evaluation are carried out. The permanent secretary bears responsibility for the ‘financial control and propriety of spending’ within their department. As accounting officer, a permanent secretary has the right to express a formal objection to a ministerial decision if they feel the decision would lead to money being spent in a way that breaches the criteria of regularity and propriety.
As a member of the public service top management team, the permanent secretary is part of the ‘collective leadership of the Civil Service’ as a whole. Permanent secretaries are members of the larger collectivity of government and are expected to play a corporate role on behalf of the government. Part of this entails making sure that departmental initiatives are consistent with overall governmental objectives. Participating in the collective management of the public service may also include serving on special task forces investigating policy questions or perhaps matters of government organisation, heading corporate projects, or joining committees. Finally, permanent secretaries must observe and support government-wide management standards and regulations that have been set by ministers collectively.
The permanent secretary is always caught in a terrible vise: required by law to serve the minister and the minister’s needs, yet harshly judged by peers on his or her ability to bring a rational approach to departmental decisions and thus maintain moral authority. This matrixed relationship ensures that the permanent secretary is both responsive to and independent of the minister. It gives him or her the ability to “speak truth to power” when advice or counsel is called for. It also ensures that, in the final analysis, the democratic will of elected officials will carry the day.
High Expectations From The Mnangagwa GovernmentSep 04, 2018
At the outset, let me congratulate President Mnangagwa for winning the 2018 Presidential Race. The agenda of the Second Republic in the shape of their visionary “Election Manifesto” is to successfully implement growth-oriented, people-friendly, and consensus-driven policies. The overriding expectation from Zimbabwean’s is that the government will deliver on all its election promises. The Mnangagwameter initiative produced an on-line tracker https://mnangagwameter.polimeter.org. outlining several promises. I believe that the new government has plans emanating from the manifesto that are comprehensively prepared, encompassing all facets of our economy and society. The citizenry has high expectations, and anticipate such expectations to be met. All they want is an improvement of their standard of living.
The challenges that President Mnangagwa faces are very tall and he may be subjected to unrelenting political criticism by all those who lost the contest. However, the politics of consensus and collaboration with opposition parties is a sine qua non for achieving desired national outcomes. My hope is that Zimbabwean’s from all political persuasions will commit their full-fledged support to all positive and visionary government initiatives.
President Mnangagwa’s assessment of performance since assuming office on 24 November 2017 is polarising, depending on who is doing the evaluation. While his detractors believe that he had failed to make real progress, his supporters think he performed beyond expectations, and believe that he will do better and consolidate on the gains he achieved in the eight months in office.
And What’s in President Mnangagwa’s In-Tray?
The expectations outlined hereunder are a few aspirations of Zimbabwe’s economy and the society, and may be achieved in a planned manner over the short to medium term. They constitute items of the new President “To-Do-List”.
- Unite The Nation: After forming a new government the President’s most important task will be to unite the country. This will not be easy after such an aggressive and polarizing election campaign.
- Economic Recovery and Growth: Three decades of Mugabe’s rule has left the economic development lagging behind many other country's in the region and beyond. The negative heritage will weigh heavily on the President Mnangagwa. His priority will be to put Zimbabwe back on the road to economic recovery and growth.
- Transparent and Efficient Administration: The expectation is that the government will continue to improve efficiency and bring more transparency in the system. The President is expected to widely set working standards and level of service that government need to provide to the people. It is anticipated government will implement ‘e-Government Services’, which will solve the problem of accessibility, transparency, delayed services, and invariably reduce government officials burden and time, and save the fiscus money. Of great importance will be to provide a grievances and feedback process for services received as this will facilitate informed decision making, informed strategic changes in administration, and provide evidence based assessment tools.
- Prudent Fiscus Management: State finances are stretched which will make it hard for President Mnangagwa to spending his way to popularity. His austerity policy programmes may raise the risk of deeper economic pain in the near future. The citizenry expects that his government will consider the difficult time and start making sacrifices on their comforts and luxuries.
- Innovation: Government should come up with new plans for the development of the state. They need to apply various new and modern ideas to take Zimbabwe to new heights.
- Policy Consistency and Coherence: Government should make less illogical decisions. They have historically made various unreasoned decisions, policy stalling and reversals which were not in the interest of the people. They will be expected to make decisions after understanding the problems of common people.
- Fighting Corruption: How the President addresses corruption issues will be closely watched in the days to come. There should be an end to the menace of corruption. Corruption is present everywhere in our state be it politics, government, business and so on. It will be a wonderful step by the Government , if they are able to stop this menace.
- FDI Attraction: Investor sentiment improved in the last eight months, but the Government needs to consistently send positive signals to investors.
- Employment Creation: Unemployment is at alarming levels and has potential of brain draining our creative talent. Youths who don’t find employment despite their best efforts, get frustrated and lead some into crime and drug addiction. Government should generate more employment avenues for the unemployed, especially the youth. To make this happen government has to help revive the manufacturing sector and focus on manufacturing-led growth. The SME sector contributes to manufacturing, exports and employment in a big way and, therefore, this sector should be vigorously promoted.
- Expedite Projects Implementation: Government is expected to speed up the pace of different stalled and on-going infrastructure projects. The slow pace of these projects affect the working of the different sectors of the state.
- Balanced Urban and Rural Development: Overall development of the state is the need of the hour. Government should work equally for both the urban and the rural areas and bring down the disparity between them.
- Public Healthcare: State-owned hospitals and health clinics at all levels need better service, medicine, infrastructure, and more trained staff.
- Electricity Generation: Electricity is one of the main problems in Zimbabwe. Most areas remain without electricity for several hours.
- Sort Traffic Mess: Government should properly address the ever increasing traffic mess in the City of Harare as it is causing a lot of trouble for the commuters. There is need for proper infrastructure in our traffic system to tackle this menace.
- Clean Water: Clean and adequate water supply is a dire need for the majority of our population. Intentional and long term effort is required from government to address this issue.
I am optimistic that some results will manifest, but we must be mind-full that we are climbing a steep hill and it takes time and strenuous effort to get to the peak. However, if Government develops the right policy mix for the country they may score successes on several of these issues.