“Ministers must be part of the solution, not the problem, to achieve meaningful progress”

Interview: Sateeaved Seebaluck, Former Secretary to Cabinet and Head of the Civil Service

* ‘A senior civil servant does not — and should not — boycott his own Minister…
… by definition, a civil servant is expected to remain apolitical, serving the public interest with integrity and impartiality’

* ‘Security of tenure in the civil service is not absolute and should not be misinterpreted’

The relationship between political leadership and the civil service is a delicate and often contentious one, particularly in the context of newly-elected governments. Recent reports in Mauritius have highlighted concerns from a few newly-appointed ministers regarding perceived non-cooperation from senior civil servants, raising questions about the apolitical nature of the public service and its ability to adapt to change. To shed light on these complex dynamics, the Mauritius Times spoke with Sateeaved Seebaluck, former Secretary to Cabinet and Head of the Civil Service, among other high-ranking positions. With over four decades of experience, Mr Seebaluck offers invaluable insights into the challenges and intricacies of this relationship, addressing issues ranging from perceived obstruction to the need for comprehensive civil service reform.

Mauritius Times: Recent reports indicate that some newly-appointed ministers have expressed concerns about perceived non-cooperation from some senior civil servants, including suggestions of a ‘boycott’ aimed at undermining the concerned ministers’ – and ultimately the government’s policies. How do you react to these reports?

Sateeaved Seebaluck: This kind of rhetoric tends to resurface after every general election. It is certainly not new to our political and administrative landscape. Speaking from personal experience, having served in the Civil Service for over four decades — including roles at mid-management and top levels, such as Permanent Secretary, Senior Chief Executive, and eventually Secretary to Cabinet and Head of the Civil Service until 2016 — I can confidently say that actual cases of senior officers intentionally undermining a minister, what is often described as “mette baton dan la roue”, are extremely rare.

A senior civil servant does not — and should not — boycott his own Minister. The very suggestion, even if based on a perception, can seriously affect the working environment within a Ministry and should therefore be addressed promptly and transparently. By definition, a civil servant is expected to remain apolitical, serving the public interest with integrity and impartiality. Their role is to provide continuity, sound advice, and ensure that government policies are implemented within the framework of the law and established procedures.

What I have observed over the years is that tensions of this nature usually arise with newly appointed ministers — those still unfamiliar with the inner workings, protocols, and procedures of the civil service. Unlike seasoned ministers who understand the “rouages administratifs”, first-timers may find the system complex and time-consuming, and this can lead to frustration. In their eagerness to bring about rapid change or implement bold initiatives, some may expect results overnight. When civil servants respond with a necessary ‘no’ or request time to follow due process, it may be misinterpreted as resistance or even obstruction. The result is often a premature accusation that “to lot côté toi”.

That said, it is also essential that civil servants do not exploit a minister’s lack of familiarity with rules and procedures to mislead or misguide him. While such conduct would eventually be uncovered, the damage to both policy delivery and public trust could already have been done.

Lastly, it is worth clarifying whether the perceived non-cooperation pertains to the official business of the Ministry or to matters of a more personal nature related to the Minister. That distinction is critical when interpreting such claims.

* Could differing policy views, a lack of responsiveness, or the civil servant’s adherence

It is a combination of factors. A civil servant’s role is to uphold the rule of law, provide objective advice to the government, and maintain impartiality and integrity. If a civil servant holds a different perspective, it is the officer’s duty to express it to the minister, who should welcome constructive debate. After all, it is through the exchange of diverse viewpoints and thorough discussions that the best solutions emerge — du choc des idées jaillit la lumière.

Unfortunately, civil servants who voice differing opinions may sometimes be unfairly labelled as uncooperative or even incompetent. As a result, many opt for silence.

The other aspects of this question are interrelated. In an era where good governance should be the guiding principle, adherence to established rules and procedures, particularly in matters involving public funds, must remain a priority. Ministers must acknowledge and respect this principle at all times. However, I have observed ministers who blatantly disregard these principles, exerting undue pressure on civil servants. More often than not, I have seen such actions lead to their downfall.

* While civil servants generally demonstrate loyalty to the government of the day, could security of tenure, in some instances, embolden civil servants to act against this principle?

It is undeniable that the public service harbours a small number of underperforming, uncooperative, and inefficient officers. These individuals are the exceptions rather than the rule, yet they often evade accountability.

Some of them claim, and indeed receive, political backing — even from the highest levels of government. In fact, when disciplinary action is initiated, supervising officers often encounter strong resistance from ministers. Ironically, when a new government takes office, these very individuals are often the first to switch allegiances. Even more paradoxically, those who attempt to restore discipline are the ones accused of disloyalty.

Security of tenure in the civil service is not absolute and should not be misinterpreted. The PSC regulations clearly outline procedures and disciplinary measures for underperforming and other unruly officers. However, Responsible Officers must be free to enforce these regulations across the civil service, without political interference.

* To what degree are the attitudes of senior civil servants influenced by the conduct of political leadership?

The question of leadership is fundamental to the success of any institution, whether public or private. Ministers should realize that if they want to achieve meaningful progress during their tenure, they must be part of the solution, not the problem.

The Senior Chief Executive or Permanent Secretary serves as both the primary adviser to the Minister and the chief executing agent of the ministry’s policies and projects. The effectiveness of the organization depends largely on the motivation of senior officers, who, in turn, inspire their teams. Ministers should motivate, inspire, and encourage their teams to perform at their best while clearly communicating their vision and expectations. They should demonstrate humility by learning from their team. If they choose to act as authoritarian figures merely issuing directives, they should expect only minimal cooperation from their staff. A minister’s authoritarian approach often triggers resistance among senior and junior employees, which may then be misinterpreted as disloyalty.

Given that the current government was elected on a platform of change, particularly in governance, and has set forth an ambitious government programme, I strongly recommend implementing specialized training programs to be offered to cabinet members, followed by the legislature. That would ensure they are well-equipped to fulfil their roles effectively. The newly established Civil Service College could organise such training programmes, with former ministers, senior civil servants, and legal experts serving as moderators. Such training programs are already in place in countries like the UK, Singapore, and China, where a dedicated institute provides residential training for government officials nationwide.

* Besides humility, what other key factors contribute to a successful working relations between ministers and civil servants?

Trust and competence. From my own experience I can say that first and foremost is mutual trust. If there is no trust at the highest level of administration and the staff in general, nothing will work. A negative atmosphere will prevail throughout the department which definitely affects service delivery. Conversely, when strong synergy and mutual trust exist between the Minister and the staff, the overall organizational climate becomes conducive to outstanding results.

The other factor is competence. When staff members are competent and their expertise is recognized by the Minister, they are naturally motivated to perform at their best.

Invariably, Ministers who take over a new Ministry look for a trustworthy and competent Permanent Secretary to work with. Lucky is the one who get both in one and the same person. This is not to say that all senior officers lack trustworthiness; perceptions of trust can be subjective.

* Despite frequent calls for civil service reform, instances such as the police’s effective response when given clear directives and especially whenever “l’ordre pas vinne depuis la-haut” (directives or orders not issued from those in positions of authority), the medical personnel’s management of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Fire and Rescue Services’ as well as the SMF’s performance during emergencies demonstrate the civil service’s adaptive capacity. What do these examples reveal about the service’s ability to meet challenges?

I am glad that you put this question. More often than not, we hear people complain about the civil service for various reasons, many of which are misguided. This creates the impression that civil servants are nothing more than unworthy stooges.

Have you ever considered that when you board an aircraft that takes off and lands safely, the air traffic controllers — civil servants working at odd hours — are the ones ensuring your safety, with thousands of lives depending on them? Similarly, the men and women of the Fire and Rescue Services, who respond to emergency calls at any hour — especially during heavy rainfall to pump water out of homes — are also civil servants.

People should be more considerate in their criticisms of the public service. Without a functioning public service, the economy would hardly exist.

Yes, the adaptive capacity of the public service has been tested many times, and each time, it has emerged with its head held high. However, I acknowledge that there are pressing shortcomings that need to be addressed, such as inadequate training, outdated equipment, and the urgent need for modernization and technological advancements. These improvements, however, come at a high cost and may not always be sustainable in the long run.

* It could also be argued that comprehensive reform is unnecessary. Instead, focusing on increased accountability, reduced political interference, merit-based promotions over seniority, and a redistribution of responsibilities between administrative and technical cadres might suffice. What are your thoughts on this approach?

The aspects mentioned in your question are, in fact, key elements of a broader reform process. Comprehensive reform is necessary in the public service to enhance accountability, transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, and service delivery.

For decades, public service reform has been overseen by a dedicated ministry, highlighting the government’s recognition of its importance. However not much has been achieved so far. While targeted improvements — such as increased accountability, reduced political interference, and merit-based promotions — are essential, they remain to be integrated within a larger, well-structured reform strategy to ensure long-term sustainability and impact.

Elements you mention — enhanced accountability, reduced political interference, merit-based promotions, and a redistribution of responsibilities — are indeed crucial aspects of public service reform. However, they are not sufficient on their own. A comprehensive reform is necessary to ensure greater accountability, transparency, efficiency, and improved service delivery.

Despite decades of dedicated ministries overseeing public sector reforms, tangible progress has been limited. In today’s fast-paced and competitive world, clinging to outdated systems while merely discussing change is no longer viable. For instance, the continued reliance on paper-based processes, despite the availability of digital solutions, results in unnecessary waste of time, money, and resources. Many lesser-developed countries have already transitioned to digital governance, yet our public service remains largely manual, fostering inefficiency and weak accountability.

Modernizing the country requires a modern public sector. The promised reforms by the new government will only be partially realized without bold and decisive action. Encouragingly, some recently announced initiatives, such as the introduction of Program-Based Budgeting (PBB) in the 2025-26 fiscal year and the digitalization of public services, have the potential to be transformative. However, for meaningful change to occur, the Ministry of Public Service and Administrative Reforms must take proactive measures rather than remain in its slumber.

* We also hear on occasion – usually in the spirit of political correctness — about the need for fostering diversity in the civil service. Do you think political correctness should be allowed to trump over merit in the recruitment of civil servants?

There appears to be a persistent misconception in some quarters regarding recruitment within the Mauritian Civil Service. This misunderstanding has, at times, extended to international institutions such as the World Bank, until they were presented with the facts and clarified the situation. In reality, public sector employment in Mauritius is open to all qualified citizens, and the Government remains firmly committed to the principles of meritocracy and equal opportunity.

The Public Service Commission (PSC) regulations clearly outline the entry requirements for various positions. Recruitment is based on merit, and candidates are selected through a transparent process designed to identify the most competent and qualified individuals. This ensures that appointments are made fairly and without bias.

Lately, there has been a noticeable shift in employment preferences among the younger generation. Increasingly, young Mauritians are choosing to pursue careers in the private sector or to explore entrepreneurial ventures. While this reflects a healthy diversification of career aspirations, it is also accompanied by a growing trend of emigration, as many seek perceived better prospects abroad.

While it is natural to explore global opportunities, it is important to recognise the value and impact of public service at home. The Civil Service continues to play a critical role in nation-building and offers meaningful career paths for those committed to serving the country. As such, ongoing efforts to promote transparency, fairness, and professional development within the public sector are essential to attract and retain talent, especially among the youth.

* There may be a need, however, for a review of the recruitment procedures of the PSC so as to make them more transparent. What’s your take on that?

While there is always room for improvement in any system, it is important to note that the Public Service Commission (PSC) Regulations, although originally gazetted in 1967, have undergone regular revisions to adapt to the evolving needs of the Civil Service. The number of amendments over the years reflects ongoing efforts to enhance the recruitment process, with the most recent amendment made in 2024.

Whether there is a need for further review in the name of “transparency” depends largely on how transparency is defined. For instance, should the marks obtained by candidates be systematically published or made available to all applicants? Should interview sessions be video recorded? These questions raise complex ethical and legal considerations, including the protection of personal data and the need to preserve the integrity of the recruitment process.

Nevertheless, the current system already provides recourse for candidates who feel aggrieved by the outcome of a selection exercise. They may appeal to the Public Bodies Appeal Tribunal or seek judicial review before the Supreme Court. In such cases, the Tribunal or the Court may request the disclosure of relevant documents, including mark sheets, in the interest of fairness and justice.

The potential introduction of a Freedom of Information Act in Mauritius may also facilitate greater access to information, including aspects of public recruitment, thereby reinforcing the transparency of the system in a balanced and responsible manner.

* Given perceptions of endemic corruption and the alleged failure of civil servant-run oversight institutions, would you say that civil servants are not adequately protected to resist political pressure?

In Mauritius, the relationship between political leadership and the civil service has been subject to scrutiny, especially in light of allegations of corruption, political interference, and weakened institutional autonomy. The line of demarcation between the functions of a Minister — who is a political appointee — and those of the Permanent Secretary or supervising officer — who represents the apolitical, professional arm of the administration — has long been a topic of debate since independence in 1968.

While the Constitution of Mauritius and related statutes provide for an independent public service, the practical reality often tells a different story. Civil servants are expected to operate impartially and to advise ministers based on technical expertise and policy continuity. However, over time, increasing political interference has blurred this separation. Ministers sometimes exert influence on administrative decisions that should fall under the purview of senior civil servants, thereby compromising the neutrality and professional independence of the civil service.

There is a perception that civil servants are not adequately protected to resist such political pressure. Mechanisms such as the Public Service Commission, the Public Sector Anti-Corruption Framework, and various oversight bodies including the Financial Crimes Commission are meant to safeguard the integrity of the civil service. However, concerns have been raised over the effectiveness and impartiality of these institutions, especially when they are perceived to be politically aligned or reluctant to investigate high-profile cases involving powerful individuals.

There is therefore a dire need to legally define clearly the roles of each party concerned so that a line of demarcation could be established between the two functions. During my tenure as SCE at the Ministry of Civil Service and Administrative Reforms and subsequently as Secretary to the Cabinet and Head of the Civil Service I had piloted and finalised the drafting of a Public Service Bill that, among many other bold proposals, set forth the attributions of Ministers, Responsible/Accounting Officers as well as advisers employed on contract. The document had been thoroughly discussed with all stakeholders and had even been cleared by the State Law Office. It was eventually submitted to the Cabinet in 2016 for approval before it could go as a bill to parliament. We are in 2025; it never came back! You can draw your own conclusions.

* To improve performance and service delivery, Performance-Based Budgeting (PBB), centred on programmes and project outcomes, is being introduced. What are your personal views regarding PBB’s potential, and what challenges do you foresee in the Civil Service’s transition to this new budgeting approach?

As you point out, PBB shifts focus from inputs (like salaries or supplies) to outputs and outcomes (like improved health services or a healthy population), with a view to improving resource allocation, accountability, and performance measurement. Performance-Based Budgeting (PBB) is a transformative approach in public financial management by aligning budget allocations with measurable outcomes.

PBB was first introduced in Mauritius in fiscal Year 2007-2008 within the context of a broader fiscal reform. The main aim of introducing PBB was to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public spending, so as to achieve better social and development outcomes. However, in view of various challenges and adaptive issues, the new government that took over in 2014 reverted to the previous system of expenditure budgeting.

Challenges in the preparation and implementation of PBB relate to Cultural Resistance, capacity constraints, data reliability and political influence. Transitioning to PBB requires a fundamental shift in organizational culture. Effective implementation of PBB necessitates that civil servants possess the skills to define, measure, and analyse performance indicators. A lack of expertise in these areas can impede the accurate assessment of program outcomes.

The success of PBB hinges on the availability of reliable performance data. In some ministries, establishing robust data collection and management systems remains a significant challenge, complicating the evaluation of program effectiveness. Moreover, budgetary decisions may be swayed by political agendas, potentially undermining the objectivity of performance assessments. Ensuring that funding allocations are based on performance metrics rather than political considerations is a persistent challenge.

While moving to PBB, which I understand will be introduced in fiscal year 2025-2026, is a smart initiative in the context of the proposed change in the governance structure, as indicated in the government Programme, I believe that an abrupt change without transition, is a daring attempt, with the risk that the objectives and expected outcomes may not be achieved.

It is therefore essential that a phased and well-structured approach is adopted for the successful implementation of PBB that could be introduced not before fiscal year 2026-2027.

Before we do so, there are some key areas that we need to focus on to ensure it is done effectively.

First, we must invest in capacity building. Proper training should be provided to our civil servants so that they can develop the skills needed to measure performance and manage programs efficiently. This is critical to make sure evaluations are accurate and that decisions are based on reliable information.

Secondly, clear performance indicators should be put in place. When success is defined in clear terms, it becomes easier to measure whether our programs are working and whether they are aligned with our national goals.

Another important aspect is to establish strong monitoring and evaluation systems. These systems will allow progress to be tracked on a regular basis and necessary changes to be made where required. This kind of continuous feedback is essential to keep programs on the right track and to improve their effectiveness over time.

Equally important is the need for political commitment. The success of PBB depends heavily on support from political leaders, including the opposition, and key decision-makers. We need to clearly communicate the benefits of this budgeting approach, especially how it contributes to better governance, transparency, and the achievement of policy outcomes. Gaining this buy-in will help reduce resistance and ensure smoother implementation.

---

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 28 March 2025

Tags:Accountability, Apolitical, Authoritarianism, Civil Service Reform, Cooperation, Digitalization, Integrity, Interference, Interview Sateeaved Seebaluck, Mauritius Times, Performance-Based Budgeting, Public Service Reform, Recruitment, Resistance, Transparency, Underperformance