Case for Cabinet with few, or no, politicians

In Summary

…the President would likely revert to type and appoint from the old team(s) that he has had over the length of his rule. I believe I speak for many in saying that these individuals are recycled beyond use.

Many Ugandans are waiting with bated breath for who would be appointed to the new Cabinet as we come to the business end of this electoral cycle. I am not one of them.
Going by the track record that Uganda has witnessed over the last 40 or 50 years, the chances of throwing a stone in the Cabinet Room and hitting a non-politician are next to zero. You are more likely to strike the tea lady.
President after president, reshuffle after reshuffle, has tended to throw up politicians of one hue or another. One can objectively, and categorically, expect that politicos will fill the Cabinet posts and the junior positions whose announcement is happening.

Are we wrong to expect politicians to populate the chart? Probably not, given that our democracy has the tradition of appointments emanating from Parliament or other corridors of (political) power, of which the former is made up (mostly) of elected individuals. That is the Westminster style that we inherited and still slavishly follow.
We cannot deny the fact that these, our elected representatives, are also political players critical in the equation that the President has to balance every electoral cycle or, whenever he desires to play the mid-term musical chairs.

But, as it was, still is, should it forever be? Is there not a case for a Cabinet with few or no politicians? Wags have noted, in the past few weeks, how the new crop of Members of Parliament is not ‘ministerial’ enough. I am not sure I understand what ‘ministerial’ is, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt. In any case, if he deemed that view legitimate enough to influence his choice of Cabinet support team, the President would likely revert to type and appoint from the old team(s) that he has had over the length of his rule. I believe I speak for many in saying that these individuals are recycled beyond use.
The psychology of appointing politicians is: “Where do I fit this man?”, and that of technocrats is: “Who is the best man for this job?”

Why, then, not choose from the technocratic field? After all, that would give a much wider choice (tens of thousands of technocrats, both locally-based and in the Diaspora, against a pool of a few hundred that elected and non-elected politicians would offer). Surely that can only be good for the nation and the appointing authority. The fact is that there are many competent and, equally important, patriotic Ugandans out there who have a lot to offer their country but are put off by the rough and tumble of politics. Should we lose out on what could be transformational contributions?

A few countries, notably the United States, have looked beyond the narrow prism of politics to choose what are effectively Cabinet ministers. These nations are all the better for this broadmindedness, if only because when they come into office, such individuals are given to serving with a single-mindedness, without the baggage of having to balance and please multiple political constituencies.
This is not to say that politicians are completely useless as Cabinet ministers. No. We have had a number of decent individuals who have made valuable and long-lasting contributions to the country. But these, Mr President, tend to be few and far between.

There is a big pool of technocrats out there – in Cabinet there has popped up the odd Adyebo, Suruma, Ondoa, Mulira, Kiwanuka – but they are only occasional, and political expediency has usually seen their stay being short-lived.
Some of the greatest rulers in history – think King David or Joseph of Egypt – have not been politicians. It is a principle of nature that the wider one casts his net, the richer the catch they are likely to haul in. Cast thy net.