The ECOWAS Commission and the leadership question: Some fundamentals

The subject of political leadership has maintained a presence in the discourse on African development since the dawn of independence. It has been prominent through the era of the first generation of immediate beneficiaries of independence to the era of the men in khaki, then to the second cabal of political inheritors and, finally, to the current motley crowd of rulers. It can be argued that type of political system has not been a variable impacting on the debate nor is there an empirical relationship between the intensity of preoccupation with leadership issues and national socio-economic conditions. That is, concern about leadership remains a constant.

Arguably, the preoccupation with leadership has also been heavily focused on the national level almost to its total exclusion at the regional and continental levels. Numerous are the reasons for this lacuna, a few of which are listed here below. First, interest of African governments in the superordinate objective of promoting regional integration has not been profound and sustained. Second, and the flip side of the above, the national development problematique has been of greater preoccupation and priority to governments. Third, regional integration has not been perceived as a means for realizing the developmental goals at the national level; rather, success in national development has been assumed to be a more dependable basis for building regional integration. Fourth, again, in resource allocation national demands are of higher priority – this partly explains why member states have tended to be routinely in arrears – sometimes massively - in the payment of their contributions to regional inter-governmental organizations (IGOs). Fifth, regional organizations have themselves been bedeviled with immense wide-ranging problems which are not considered to be the business of national governments.  Sixth, if these shortcomings in the IGOs are resolved then they would move on to the achievement of their own aims and objectives and, additionally, to national development; and, a consequence would be that the regional organizations would attract more genuine attention from the national governments.

It is against this background that this brief think-piece examines the often-ignored subject of leadership in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), one of the principal regional economic communities in Africa. Specifically, the paper puts the searchlight on the Presidency of the Commission, as the focus of leadership in the organization. It is anticipated that this would be the basis of a more comprehensive comparative study of leadership in the other economic communities in Africa.

The establishing treaties of the six communities have general provisions as to the backgrounds of potential incumbents of the highest management positions in the organization. For ECOWAS, the President heads the Commission (secretariat) and is assisted by a Deputy and staff (Revised Treaty, 1993, Article 17, para. 2). He is the chief executive officer of the community and all its institutions (Art. 19, para 1) and directs the activities of the Commission; he is the legal representative of the institutions of the community in their totality. Appointment to the position is by the Authority of Heads of State and Government, for a non-renewable four-year term; he is removable only by the Authority (Article 18, para. 1).

Here, one fundamental issue that arises is the duration of the appointment – currently one term of four years as opposed to the original two terms each of four years. The question is whether in a complex multi-tasked organization such as a regional economic community much can be achieved in a tenure of four years. When to this provision is added the fact that the terms of office of the Deputy President and the Commissioners are also of similar duration the question takes on added importance.

In like manner, since the adoption of the revamped structures in 2006/7, there has been an increase in the number of Commissioners from 6 to 13 and, similarly, in the number of departments. Various concerns arise, the most fundamental of which is the massive cost implications. A colossal amount is involved in meeting the charges involved; this includes salaries and allowances, other direct emoluments, family residence, official transport, overseas travel, etc., etc. The total cost for each Commissioner has been estimated at $150,000. Wise counsel has it that whatever the gross amount involved it would go a long way if directly invested in substantive programme implementation in the member states; it would offset a significant proportion of funding currently received from donors for financing regional and national projects.

This leads to the question of whether it was necessary in the first place to increase the number of departments and Commissioners from zero to six initially, and then to thirteen; after all, in spite of many trials and tribulations the ex-Secretariat had been functioning creditably well before the increase. The departments were headed by directors, instead of Commissioners, who were, for the most part, experts in the various fields covered by the departments.  The skeptic would only conclude, with some evidence, that the whole set of “reforms” of the day were influenced by the experience of the European Union rather than by (West) African realities.

Another issue that arises is that there is no mention in the treaty, or any relevant source, of the professional background and qualifications, academic and otherwise, of candidates for the Statutory Appointees posts (including the President). The only relevant provision is in Article 18, paragraph 3, which states that the President “shall be a person of proven competence and integrity with a global vision of political and economic problems and regional integration.” Perhaps this is as it should be given the status accorded the position and the high rank enjoyed by the incumbent; some envisage, in fact, that the position should rank at that of Head of State. Nonetheless, it would not deprive the position of the highest recognition if it carried a minimum requirement of a university education and a decade of high-level management experience. These would be easily met by anyone aspiring to lead an organization such as ECOWAS.

Concerning the functions assigned to the position, besides the afore-quoted general responsibilities specific duties are spelt out in Article 19, para. 3, including:

• execution of decisions of the Authority and application of the regulations of the Council;
• promotion of Community programmes and projects and multinational enterprises;
• organization of meetings of sectoral ministers to examine sectoral issues which contribute to the achievement of the objectives of Community;
• preparation of the draft budgets and programmes and supervision of their execution;
• submission of reports on Community activities to the Authority and Council of Ministers;
• servicing of meetings of the Authority and Council, experts and technical commissions; and
• recruitment of staff  of the Community and to posts other than statutory appointees in accordance with the Staff Rules and Regulations.

No doubt, these are enormous responsibilities befitting the leader of an organization such as ECOWAS. Given the stature of the position and the extensive responsibilities it has been accorded, it is to its credit that the process for recruitment to the position is also clearly specified in the establishing treaty and other statutory documents. Here, perhaps it should also be noted that this was at the behest of the blue-ribbon Committee of Eminent Persons to Review the ECOWAS Treaty (1992-1993) whose mission was to draft the revised treaty based, inter alia, on a review of the original treaty (1975).  The fact that the Committee was made up of very prominent and experienced technocrats and political leaders, and fully acquainted with the integration experience in Africa and in the West Africa region, was a boon.  From their vast knowledge and experience the “eminent persons” were fully conscious of the type of leadership required in ECOWAS. Similarly, their experience had also revealed the centrality of process variables in the selection of the leadership required in ECOWAS at the close of its first quarter of existence, if it were to achieve its goals and objectives.

What then was the process for selection of the Executive Secretary/President of the ECOWAS Secretariat/Commission and the other Statutory Apppointees? Article 18, para. 2 provides that, first, the vacant post should be allocated to a particular member state who shall nominate three candidates. The ECOWAS Ministerial Committee on the Selection and Evaluation of the Performance of Statutory Appointees would then evaluate the three candidates and make recommendations to the Council of Ministers. Thereafter, the Council would propose to the Authority the appointment of the person “adjudged the best.”

In the cases of the Deputy President and the other Statutory Appointees the same process applies, with the appointments being at the level of the Council of Ministers on the recommendation of the Ministerial Committee on the Selection and Evaluation of the Performance of Statutory Appointees; the initial evaluation of the three candidates at the national level would be done by the member state.

Significantly, there is also provision that “Vacancies shall be advertised in all member states to which statutory posts have been allocated” (Article 18, para.4 (b). This has been revolutionary for, more than ever before, it opened up new vistas for new values which, in fact, do not exist at the national level. It would introduce openness of the selection process which is absent in any and all of the integration institutions in the continent and even globally. The new system would definitely increase the chances of someone “adjudged the best” to emerge as the leader not only of the commission but also of the integration project in the region. [1]

But, the reality is distant from the ideal; principles quite distant from practice. In all but a few countries the recruitment provisions have been honoured more in the breach than in their observance; parts of the new process have been followed in specific cases but not the whole process in all cases. In other words, in no instance have the recruitment procedures been respected in toto and to the letter - especially as regards the more sensitive actions as design of the job descriptions, vacancy announcements, short listing of applicants, formal interviews at different levels, and the like. This has been particularly so for the positions of President and Deputy President of the Commission where it is, in fact, most necessary. Politics and personal factors are never a distance away and the process is easily compromised.

No doubt, non-respect for the totality of the recruitment procedures for Statutory Appointees has had negative consequences on the leadership of the organization, on its performance, and on the realization of its ambitions. This and associated fundamentals call for follow-up research and policy action.

* Jeggan C. Senghor is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London.

End note

 [1]All of these provisions are noted as required in the relatively recent: Decision A/DEC.2/07/13 Establishing Six New Departments at the ECOWAS Commission and Allocating Statutory Posts within the Community Institutions, dated 18 July 2013.

* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Please send comments to [email=[email protected]]editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org[/email] or comment online at Pambazuka News.