Is it time to change the way governments function?

Going back over nearly 2000 years the Chinese introduced a form of government based on  overarching functions or ministries. By the 16th Century the king in the UK had chosen to adopt a cabinet and ministry system similar to those he had observed on the continent of Europe. By the time that we reach the 21stCentury, the cabinet system has been subjugated to a prime ministerial , presidential system in many countries.

No better example of this presidential approach could there be than the announcement of the 2024 General Election in the UK. Not only did the Prime Minister decide to call an election without any consultation with his cabinet, but he made the decision whilst involving a few of his unelected advisors. He then made the election a ‘fait de complis’ by getting it approved by the king before informing his cabinet.

What this means, of course, is that democracy in many countries is a deception where one thinks they are electing a member of parliament to serve them, but where they are in fact electing a de facto president. This means that the ability to decide the relevant issues does not even lie with the ministries. They are simply required to carry out the decisions of the prime minister and his unelected personal advisers.

But, the worst of this scenario is that the changes that need to be made to the present structure of government is unlikely to happen, given that the prime minister (president) has neither the vision or the will to make changes. Hence the same institutions carry on as before and fail in the same way as the previous incumbents.

Unfortunately, the structures of the 16th Century do not solve today’s much more complex and interdepartmental issues. For example, getting rid of homelessness will not be achieved by simply building more places to live. Dealing with homelessness needs the involvement of mental health professionals, employment opportunities, drug and alcohol agencies and groups outside of government, such as charities and businesses.

As long as the target for reducing homelessness lies with housing, nothing will happen. Government needs to change to a project based structure that involves all necessary agencies with a single shared and committed target. Without this, competing objectives in separate silos or ministries will not lead to success.

I well remember working with a local authority where the housing officer was measured on how few unoccupied bedrooms she had. However, the finance person was changed with maximising rental revenue. She was succeeding, where he was failing! This occurred because she had no target for rent collection and hence, if a person with two bedrooms had not paid their rent for a considerable time, she would move them to a four bedroom property on the same rent and write off the rental arrears!

I would advocate that governments took a number of key themes that require cross functional support in order to solve them, rather than continuing on a system they copied from the Chinese and later the Europeans.

Before I moved from England I live in the same village where George Orwell was buried. It is interesting to note the four ministries that he put into his book, 1984. They were:

The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs.

I am not suggesting that this is a perfect solution for today’s parliaments, but perhaps interest groups with a single target could be established to cover the complexities of subjects such as homelessness, immigration, lifetime support to include health, education employment and entertainment for work/life balance.

I am sure that there are other possibilities and that there will be resistance from those that want the power that comes at the top of the existing structure, and the civil servants that want the comfort of the known rather than the disruption of change. But if a single department could have solved the problems they would have done so. Changing ministry names or reordering the priorities of the previous administration is not the answer.

Until all of those inside and outside of government that are involved in these major issues speak with one voice and work to a single objective, governments will continue to replicate the local authority housing officer who ruined another department’s target by achieving her own. But that requires a real will to solve the big problems rather than re-arranging the seats on the Titanic.

Scroll to top