Editorial
How long for a functional ACC?
Govt credibility in question
While we commend the ADB for taking active interest in seeing the fledgling ACC functional, we wonder why it was one of our development partners and not the government from which the initiative had to come for a stocktaking of the ACC's role thus far. ADB must also be thanked for its commitment of continuing support to the ACC.It is a pity that that the ACC has not even started to operate in the way it should have, even after almost fifteen months of its setting up. The finance minister's comment following the meeting, that comes almost as an ultimatum, to sort out their squabbles in the next seven days betrays a lack of insight of the type of issues that ail the commission. How, might one ask, will it be possible for the ACC to resolve the problems, that have lingered over one year, in seven days? And that is why we are constrained to suggest that either the government is not fully conversant with the nature of the problems that beset the ACC, or, even worse, it has no intention to see the commission function properly. After all, it is not the ACC that should take all the blame. What should not escape the notice of the concerned persons is that it is not the internal conflict only that has prevented the commission from being fully functional. Much of the problem that has stood in the way of the ACC's efficacy is that of its manning, its organogaram and the rules of procedure, among other things. These are matters that respective ministries should have addressed by now, instead of allowing the commission to drift almost listlessly for most part of its existence. The fact that those ministries responsible to see the proper functioning of the commission have not identified the problem areas as yet displays the administration's apathy towards the commission. Given the benefit of doubt to the ACC, that it did not receive the fullest support that it ought to have had from the relevant quarters, what is beyond our comprehension is that internal squabbles would hamper the functioning of an organisation whose highest echelon is manned by three persons who are distinguished in their own right. While differences of opinion are only but natural we cannot believe that between men of repute these differences are irreconcilable. No amount of round tables or meetings would see a vibrant and functional ACC if it is not backed by the full commitment of all concerned.
|
|
