How a Cabinet ceases to be effective as it grows

by R.M.B SenanayakeMarch 8, 2015, 7:02 pm "Our ministers do not take the responsibility for the financial
management of their ministries. If they do, they should resign when some fraud or malpractice
is exposed in parliament as in Britain."
There is much discussion about the size of the Cabinet. Should it be 20, 30, 40 or even more?
Are there any objective criteria in this regard? It is helpful to ask what the role of a minister is.
A minister according to the British- American tradition of governance is to involve himself in
policy making in the ministry he is in charge of. The detailed supervision of the Department is
the function of the Head of the Department under the general supervision of the Permanent
Secretary. We got rid of the concept of a Permanent Secretary and now each new government
appoints complete outsiders as secretaries to ministries. They may lack administrative
experience which, despite all that is taught in our local universities about management, can be
best learnt only on the job.
Another important principle in public administration is the division of labour and
specialisation. The Department of Education is concerned only with education and over the
years those involved in it acquire a special knowledge in the subject. There may be overlaps as
when the Ministry of Health wants to educate and train the nurses. But, by and large this basis
of division of functions allows for exclusivity and specialization which adds to efficiency.
Similarly, with regard to Health or Irrigation or Agriculture. But division of labour while it
leads to specialization also requires co-ordination for there are connected fields of knowledge
which help in correct decision-making.
Need for Co-ordination
Are there a set of departments which require closer consultation before decisions are taken?
This question was examined in Britain by a Committee headed by Lord Haldane and is called

the Machinery of Government Committee. It functioned as early as 1918.They came out with
recommendations and they identified two principal bases for grouping departments to achieve
greater co-ordination. One is according to the function of the department.
Consider the function of Agriculture which includes various services relating to agriculture
provided by the government including agricultural research. In our country where much of the
farming is in the dry zone and depends on the availability of water from the numerous
reservoirs or tanks, irrigation is closely connected to agriculture for several operations such as
ploughing and sowing depend on the availability of water. The extent cultivated under a
particular tank must take into consideration the quantum of water in the tanks. Likewise,
agricultural support by way of the supply of seed, fertilizer etc, needs to be co-ordinated so that
they are available in a timely manner.
Education or Health require specialised administration and well informed policy making. So,
they must be separate departments. The idea in establishing a ministry is to group together
related departments. This will ensure better co-ordination of the work of the different
departments engaged in the same field or function. The secretary will be the chief cocoordinator. If he is tasked with the work of at least the main department of the ministry it
would help. If he has no experience in any of the departments but has administrative experience
in a large organization in the private sector it may suffice. But, we dont have many large
organisations in the private sector unlike the USA where experienced managers in the private
sector can move into government organisations though they may lack experience in the
government sector. Public administration theory values only the experience in large
organizations as equipping persons with administrative competence.
Grouping of departments in ministries
Another basis of allocation of departments to a ministry is based on the principle of grouping
departments which cater to the same clientele- the same class of persons in the society, say the
farmers or the workers and their trade unions or the sick or the schoolchildren. This type of
departmentalization or forming of a ministry on such basis is not recommended because it leads
to Lilliputian administration which prevailed under Mahinda Rajapaksa. It is impossible to
provide a specialized or knowledgeable service when it is linked to providing a service to a
particular class of people only and it is required to provide all the services required for that
class of persons. Is the ministry for women required to provide all the services required by
women or only to deal with some special problems faced by women? The former would be
unworkable.
The opposite situation is true where a department provides a particular service only and to
whomsoever requires it.
The minister is required to be responsible to parliament for the activities of the ministry which
includes those of the departments under him. Strictly, he is responsible also for the financial
management of his ministry assisted by the secretary who is the Chief Accounting Officer
according to the Financial Regulations. Our ministers do not take the responsibility for the

financial management of their ministries. If they do, they should resign when some fraud or
malpractice is exposed in parliament as in Britain.
So, how many departments and ministries should there be? If we have one ministry for each
department we have Lilliputian administration which leads to the waste of resources and lack
of co-ordination. So, on this consideration the number of ministers should be concurrent with
the number of ministries or possible groupings of departments. How many such groupings of
departments should be there? It depends partly on the structure of the government and the
extent of devolution of power in the State. We have Provincial Councils and Pradeshiya
Sabhas. But, ministers do not like to devolve power. So, these institutions have not been
allowed by the centre to perform the role envisaged for them. The Divineguma Department was
a textbook example of centralization. The departments doled out money directly instead of
doing so through field organizations attached to the Pradesiya Sabhas.
Size of the Cabinet
There is obviously no point in including all the Ministers in the Cabinet. It should be the top
policy making body. Northcote Parkinson of Parkinsons Law fame says the ideal size of a
Cabinet should be about five members because it is easy to get them together and they can act
with complete secrecy and speed. Four of them may be well versed in finance, foreign policy,
defence and law. The fifth, he says is one who has failed to master any of these subjects and
usually becomes the Prime Minister or the Chairman.
Presumably, he may be the leader of the political party without any particular qualification or
expertise except his proficiency in hoodwinking the people. If there are more than five there
may be too much talk he says. But, when it is five the total number soon rises to seven or nine.
The usual excuse given in developed countries is to say that there is a need for more specialized
knowledge. But, in fact, according to Parkinson in a cabinet of nine "policy is made by three;
information supplied by two and financial warning by one. With the neutral Chairman it
accounts for seven, the other two are ornamental. This allocation of duties was first noted in
England in 1639 according to him. But, the folly of including more than three able and
talkative men in one committee was discovered long before. The Committee seems to need the
two silent members.
According to Parkinson, the sizes of Cabinets in the world increase often because of their
nuisance value when excluded. Their opposition can only be silenced by implicating them in
every decision. As such persons with nuisance value are brought in the number rises to 20. The
next stage in the evolution of Cabinets is when they grow to thirty. The idea of representative
members arises. Groups form within the ruling party all have to have a voice in the Cabinet and
each group is placated by adding a representative member from such group. But, as the number
increases the Cabinet becomes less and less a sound policy making body. Conversations then
arise between members among themselves. Then the original five members who have the
capacity and thinking ability decide to meet separately and so arises an Inner Cabinet. Beyond
20 the Cabinet seems to become ineffective. Where the Cabinet grows much larger it ceases to
become the real power.

So the Cabinet becomes a talking shop and ceases to be an effective mechanism for taking
decisions.
Posted by Thavam