“A competent leader can get efficient service from poor troops, while on the contrary an incapable leader can demoralize the best of troops.”
– Gen. John J.
“In city hall and in local government, you have to get things done without drama.”
– Jim Gray
IS there a genuine need for the reinstatement of local government elections in Sarawak?
Those who are in favour avow that it would be a better option than the existing system of direct appointment by the political parties in power.
They claim that only through such a democratically elected process, can the local government ensure competency, accountability and transparency in upholding the interests of the people.
While we cannot deny that there are some truths to the argument, we must also acknowledge that no system can ever be completely foolproof.
There is no clear evidence to determine which one is truly a better system.
As such the question of whether local government officials should be elected or appointed has been a topic of debate around the world for ages.
In some countries, local officials are elected by the people they serve, while in others they are appointed by higher authorities or political parties in power.
While both systems have their pros and cons, the reality is that countries worldwide are still divided between elected and direct appointment of local government.
In countries where local officials are elected, the main advantage is that they are directly accountable to the people they serve. This means that they are more likely to respond to the needs and concerns of their constituents and are less likely to prioritise their own interests over those of the people they serve.
Additionally, elections provide an opportunity for citizens to participate in the democratic process, which is an important aspect of any healthy democracy.
One of the main drawbacks of elected officials, however, is that they may not always be the most qualified or competent candidates. Popularity and charisma can sometimes trump experience and expertise, leading to less effective leadership.
In addition, elections can be expensive and time-consuming, which can limit the pool of candidates and create barriers for underrepresented groups.
In countries where local officials are appointed, the main advantage is that they are often chosen for their expertise and experience.
This means that they are more likely to be competent and effective leaders and better equipped to handle complex issues and make tough decisions.
Additionally, appointments can be made quickly and efficiently, which can ensure that local government functions smoothly and efficiently.
But in comparison to elected officials, the appointed officials can be less accountable to the people they serve since they are not directly elected by citizens. They may be more likely to prioritise the interests of higher authorities over those of their constituents.
Additionally, the appointment process can be prone to political influence and corruption, which can lead to less qualified or less deserving candidates being selected.
In Sarawak, it makes me wonder every time the issue is raised. I have no quarrel with any quarters in favour of reinstating local government elections.
In fact, I am all for any healthy debate on the matter so long as the rationale is for the betterment of the people.My only concern is on the timing of the issue being raised which makes it look like a seasonal kind of issue with a certain kind of an agenda.
Elections for local government in Sarawak were abolished in 1981, that’s 42 years ago.
It seems like there is a distinct pattern to the timing of the issue being raised. Often, it will
surface whenever the state or general elections is round the corner. Could this be a coincidence, or could it be a tactic to for political mileage? Without prejudice, at first glance, it does smack of politics.
Such is the impression as timing is always a critical aspect of any issue, be it a personal matter or a larger societal problem.
The timing of the issue being raised can have a significant impact on how it is perceived and received by the public. In some cases, the timing can even be used as a tool to manipulate or control a narrative.
Nevertheless, all suspicions aside and irrespective of the rationale behind the issue, it is perhaps timely for the relevant authorities to explore the possibility of taking another look at the never-ending calls for local government elections.
It may not necessarily result in submitting to the call but more on efforts to improve further the existing system in tandem with the rapidly changing political and economic environment. It may also put the issue to rest once and for all.
Yes, it is true that elected councils increase accountability and transparency, improve engagement and participation, representation of diverse viewpoints and greater local control, to name a few.
It will also help to ensure the councils at all levels — city, municipal or districts — have a diverse range of voices and perspectives, leading to more informed decision-making and better outcomes for the community.
At the same time, the elected councillors will provide greater degree of local control and decision-making power, allowing communities to shape policies and initiatives that are tailored to specific needs.
But all these, will certainly give rise to increased costs, limited resources, lack of expertise, political polarisation and corruption.
The increase in costs will be incurred due to the elections which can be expensive to run and one which will strain the local budget and resources.
One of the biggest problems of elected local government will be the limitations and challenges they face, including limited resources, political polarisation and corruption.
Another point of concern for elected local government is that getting elected does not guarantee success in serving the people as leadership is a skill that requires continuous development.
Just because someone is a great campaigner does not mean they are equipped to lead effectively. They may lack the experience, the knowledge, or the temperament needed to navigate complex issues and make tough decisions. They may also be reluctant to seek advice or collaborate with others, leading to a lack of innovation and progress.
One of the reasons for this is that many people who run for office are more concerned about winning than serving the people. They may make promises they have no intention of keeping, or they may be willing to compromise their values
to gain support. Once in office, they may prioritise their own interests over those of their constituents, leaving the people who elected them feeling disillusioned and betrayed.
In contrast, direct appointment saves time that would be spent on the recruitment process, including advertising, reviewing applications, and interviewing candidates; allows local government officials to quickly fill a vacancy with a qualified candidate who can begin work immediately; gives local government officials greater control over the selection process, allowing them to choose candidates who are aligned with their policies and vision for the organisation; be more efficient than a competitive recruitment process, especially when there is a need to fill a position quickly, or when there are only a limited number of qualified candidates.
It also allows local government officials to appoint individuals who are already familiar with the organisation and its operations, which can facilitate a smoother transition into the role.
But similarly with elected local government, it also has it drawbacks. For once, it can also invite controversies, as it may be perceived as favouritism or nepotism, and may not always result in the best candidate being selected for the position.
Therefore, it is essential for local government officials to exercise discretion and ensure that direct appointments are made based on merit and qualifications, rather than personal relationships or political considerations.
Hence, the decision of whether to elect or appoint local government officials depends on a variety of factors, including the culture, history, and political structure of a given country. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and what works in one country may not work in another.
As such, ideally it is important to continue the conversation and strive to find the best possible system for each individual context.
Ultimately, what is most important is that local officials are competent, effective leaders who prioritise the needs and concerns of the people they serve. Whether they are elected or appointed is less important than their ability to serve their constituents and ensure that local government functions smoothly and efficiently.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the New Sarawak Tribune.
