As the saying goes, “Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown”. It speaks to uncomfortable decisions that those in leadership position often have to make for the greater good. Sometimes such decisions might go against popular opinion because in them might be a bitter pill that has to be swallowed to cure the ailment once and for all.
Oftentimes it might be the proverbial shot in the dark that it wouldn’t, in the final analysis necessarily be the required remedy. However, leadership also requires that leaders take on uncharted terrain and then the rest will tread in their footsteps. It’s only after catching up that the rationale of the earlier decision becomes clearer to the rest.
This might be the case with the envisaged stricter vetting measures on the horizon for public servants. The deal is that those seeking employment in the public service be assessed on their suitability on the basis of tools such as assessments of their integrity and the state of their finances.
We are living in financially stressful times that might just require from ordinary folks some financial dexterity that would normally not even be given a second thought to make ends meet. As a result, many have fallen foul and struggled to keep their financial affairs clean and would therefore not make the cut for a job in the public service if the new vetting regime comes to pass.
Predictably, perhaps, the news was met with a chorus of disapproval by unions who have pointed out that it appears to be of the mindset of a hammer in hand that makes the handyman see nails needing to be hit everywhere he looks.
The unions argue that it makes no sense that the vetting applies to every job in the public sector as opposed to positions in finance where the temptation to dip into the cookie jar may arise. The other argument is that the vetting measures would constitute a gross and yet unwarranted violation of privacy for those seeking positions that wouldn’t facilitate the corruption the measures seek to eliminate, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Corruption has reached endemic proportions in this country and moves to clean up the public service will always be welcome. It would be preposterous to expect that taking a stand against graft in this manner be scoffed at entirely.
The vetting can be implemented but within reason and indeed as per labour’s assertion that it should be reserved for certain positions. It surely will not be beyond everyone concerned, from both ends of the divide, to sit down and work out how the vetting should be implemented.
But in the end, what matters are the built-in, inhouse checks and balances that will safeguard the public purse and deter the corrupt.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.