AFTER several months of meltdown, temper tantrums and recklessness at 10 Downing Street, with three Conservative leaders and prime ministers, the grownup now in the chair as prime minister is 42-year-old Rishi Sunak.

Sunak follows the comical and bumptious egomania of the petulant 58-year-old Boris Johnson, who was desperate to return to office, and the implosion of 47-year-old Liz Truss, who was terribly out of her depth.

There is considerable mistaken talk about Sunak not being elected by the British public and the need therefore for a general election. We have a parliamentary system of representative government in which a party is elected to office. There is no direct election of a prime minister.

While some may argue for an election in the UK for political reasons, Sunak is constitutionally the prime minister because he commands a majority of members in the House of Commons.

Sunak, a wunderkind, was born in May, 1980. Margaret Thatcher, a lioness of the Tories, came to power in May, 1979. Sunak was a one-year-old when Thatcher became the first female prime minister of Great Britain.

The times are different and they are different characters, coming from different backgrounds. Sunak is the first Hindu prime minister, whose parents are of Indian-Punjabi descent born in Africa.

Still, Thatcher and Sunak share a number of critical commonalities: highly disciplined policy wonks thrilled by the work of government, ideas and policy details in a wide range of areas.

DRIVEN

Many who enter politics and government are driven by mostly egotism, narcissism, a desire for riches and rewards, and motivations other than a desire to do big and compelling things through public service.

Writing in The Atlantic, Graham Allison emphasized that for the Father of modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, “the ultimate test of a political system is whether it improves the standard of living for the majority of people”. For some, the ultimate test is whether it improves their individual standard of living.

To improve the standard of living and quality and longevity of life of a people requires political leaders and public officers who appreciate and know how to craft and execute public policy and to manage a nation’s affairs through good governance.

Over a number of years, we have fallen into national decline for a number of reasons, including the poor, sclerotic and scattered quality of public policy and governance. We have witnessed at home and abroad a parade of men and women in politics who lack most of the basic characteristics and experience needed to understand how to develop a nation.

Domestically, we have seen in successive cabinets, individuals who do not understand basic economics, national and world history, basic concepts of policy formulation, the constitution or other basic information on the level of a reasonably read individual.

Yet, suddenly, they are thrust into decision-making as parliamentarians and cabinet ministers. The power often overwhelms them, typically injecting high doses of egomania and instant expert syndrome.

GOLDEN AGE?

One must be careful not to romanticise about so-called past golden ages. Still, there was a period after independence when there was a cadre of public officers and permanent secretaries, like the late Lois Symonette, who knew the system and who were curious and intellectually highly competent.

Quite a number of those who populate the ranks of senior officers today in the public service are incurious, poorly read, marking time and, sadly, not especially competent. Many do not have an appreciation of world affairs and current events from which they might draw knowledge and inspiration.

Public policy and governance are not sexy topics. But when increasing numbers of politicians and public officers lack a grasp of both, a country stalls, institutions atrophy, infrastructure crumbles, living standards decline, and malaise becomes normative.

A master class and perhaps one of the greatest periods of innovation in public policy and good governance was the three terms of Hubert Ingraham and the FNM in office beginning in 1992.

A study guide or a sort of Cliff Notes for these three dynamic periods of government is being published in three volumes under the title: “I Say What I Mean and I Mean What I Say, Hubert Ingraham in His Own Words.”

Prime Minister Ingraham was a policy wonk, who often understood one of his minister’s portfolios better than the minister. His mastery of detail in areas ranging from public health to transport to immigration was extraordinary.

Ingraham often used the preparation of his speeches as policy planning documents, which would also communicate to and lay down markers for the public, the public service, the media, business and other stakeholders.

He took the formulation of his vision, ideas and policy prescriptions seriously, which is why he retained scores of manuscripts dating from before he became prime minister.

He was aided by one of the best public officers of her generation. There is an apocryphal story, perhaps not factually correct, which makes a broader point. A story used to circulate that a former prime minister of a Caricom neighbour once said to Hubert Ingraham: “Every Caribbean prime minister needs a Teresa Butler.”

He was referring to the woman who had served with distinction as Mr Ingraham’s permanent secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister and then as his senior policy advisor.

Making good public policy is hard, arduous, laborious work. It involves tremendous attention to detail and proper consultation. It also involves political and economic philosophy or a broader instinct and vision about human development.

VISION

Vision is not a public relations exercise with clichés, high blown rhetorical flourishes, big announcements and glittering presentations.

Vision comes from the mind and heart of a leader or a party, and from what that leader or organisation wants for a people in education, health care, economic development, housing, infrastructure and myriad areas of national development.

The best leaders, like Ingraham and Singapore’s Lee, understand the need for long-term vision and gradual changes over time, depending on resources and how quickly a leader can bring the people along.

In our system, the Prime Minister is the most important member of cabinet and that is why we call him or her prime (or first), and he or she has important constitutional powers including certain powers of appointment.

The prime minister’s chief responsibility is the coordination and discipline of the cabinet where he or she is primus inter pares (first among equals).

A prime minister is expected to provide leadership for his or her colleagues; is responsible for the agenda and conduct of the proceedings of the cabinet as well as discipline; is responsible for the overall coordination of the government; and is the chief spokesperson for the government.

Cabinet debates policy matters and comes to a conclusion or conclusions which are then binding on the relevant minister and all of his or her colleagues as well as other relevant agencies of the government.

Once a cabinet conclusion is arrived at, neither the prime minister nor any other individual minister can legally overturn, reverse or vary such decision. However, the cabinet can collectively revisit any previous conclusion.

Sometime after independence the policy planning unit in the Office of the Prime Minister ceased to exist. It was a terrible institutional loss that had a telling effect.

Most governments have well-structured policy planning units (PPU), which may be different from a unit that develops long-range national plans. Some governments have separate delivery units, the primary focus of which is oversight of the execution and evaluation of policy.

PPUs are typically located in the office of the head of government, whether a prime minister or a president. They are charged with turning manifesto and campaign commitments into public policy.

We are lagging behind as a nation in many areas because the quality of governance has declined over the years, including a more structured approach to policy planning. As the admonition goes: “Those who fail to plan...”

The complex of challenges we face as a country, such as stagnant growth, high levels of social dysfunction and crime, mounting debt with high serving costs, climate change and ongoing external shocks require the best people possible to manage national affairs.

We may only begin to address the difficulties we face if we can find the kind of governance, ideas and policy ingenuity that may arrest our national decline.