Time for a change
COMMENT: Isn’t it about time that political appointments at the top of port management bodies were stopped? asks Mike Mundy
In today’s manifestly commercial world, what is needed to put a port management body on the right track is sector knowledge and professional expertise, not political acumen.
We all know that in certain locations political appointments at the top of a port authority are regarded as a reward system. “You have done well there and so now we are going to give you this job to say thank you.”
Relevant expertise does not always come into the equation – certainly not to the highest level available in the open market.
Equally, we know, and have seen many times, the short-termism regarding policy development that can come with political appointees at the top of a port authority.
Policy A is implemented under one president but is cancelled and replaced with Policy B when another political party takes power. Such a lack of continuity comes at a price both literally and as regards implementing a long-term, sustainable, development plan.
Perhaps the worst thing about political appointees in a port management body, however, is when they allow political considerations to influence rational decision making (if I do this will my political masters be happy?).
What happens in reality is that they “sit on the fence” and nothing happens. This situation can get even worse if you have an individual who is in the latter years of serving his or her term and does not want to rock the boat by taking or backing any big decisions.
The counter argument about political appointees in a port authority is that they can provide a direct line to government, get things done and oversee the strategic interests of government.
To be frank, however, when you consider this proposition in the real world the regular signs of impairment of rational planning and development due to ‘political process’ overshadow any benefits almost every time.
The ‘signs’ are applications for soft funding or grants from institutions where there is no real project need involved or where a project if realised will commence operation in a market with excess capacity.
The big indicators are facilities that should never have been built, equipment that should never have been ordered and, ultimately, facilities built more as a memorial to a given
senior political figure than for any rational purpose.
The facts tell us that the best path to achieving rational and sustainable development in the interest of all port stakeholders is via the appointment of senior industry professionals rather than risk the vagaries of political appointees. It is clearly time for a move away from this outdated system.