When Politics Meets Bureaucracy: Lessons from Inside the Ghana School Feeding Secretariat

Political transitions are among the defining features of every democracy. Elections determine who governs, but they should not determine whether public institutions continue to function professionally.

Unfortunately, in many developing democracies, the period immediately preceding and following elections often becomes one of institutional uncertainty, administrative hesitation, and declining decision-making.

I witnessed this reality first-hand during my service as Deputy National Coordinator responsible for Monitoring and Evaluation at the Ghana School Feeding Programme (GSFP).

The current national debate on the Programme has understandably centred on allegations of corruption and political interference. Those are important issues. Yet my experience suggests that another challenge receives far less attention despite its profound consequences: institutional paralysis during political transition.

This is the period when administrative decisions become hostage to political uncertainty.

Long before a new government assumes office, officials begin asking themselves difficult questions.

Who will win the election?

Will I still have my job?

Should I implement reforms that may not survive a new administration?

Should I delay important decisions until the political situation becomes clearer?

These questions are understandable.

Unfortunately, they can also become dangerous.

During my tenure, I initiated several reforms aimed at strengthening the institutional capacity of the Programme. These included formal contracts for Regional and District Coordinators, the introduction of information technology to strengthen monitoring systems, and a comprehensive national training framework designed to improve implementation standards.

These were not political reforms.

They were administrative reforms intended to make the Programme more efficient, more accountable, and more sustainable.

Yet many of these initiatives remained unsigned and unimplemented.

At the time, I struggled to understand why.

Only later did I appreciate that the reluctance reflected something much larger than disagreement over administrative procedures. As political uncertainty surrounding the 2008 elections intensified, decisions that should have been guided by institutional needs increasingly became influenced by calculations about political transition and personal survival.

Looking back, I have come to appreciate one important lesson.

Institutions rarely collapse because of one dramatic decision. More often, they weaken through a series of decisions that are never taken.

Leadership hesitates.

Files remain unsigned.

Reforms remain incomplete.

Innovation gives way to caution.

Momentum is lost.

Eventually, institutional decline becomes almost invisible until a crisis exposes how much capacity has quietly disappeared.

This experience also challenged one of the most enduring assumptions in public administration—that bureaucracies operate independently of politics.

Academic theory often distinguishes politics from administration. Reality is usually more complicated.

In politically competitive societies, senior public officials operate within environments shaped by elections, changing political leadership, public expectations, and uncertainty about institutional continuity. Complete bureaucratic neutrality is therefore difficult to achieve in practice.

The challenge is not to pretend that politics can be removed from administration.

The challenge is to build institutions strong enough to ensure that political change does not undermine professional judgment.

This distinction is crucial.

A democracy requires politically responsive governments.

It also requires professionally resilient institutions.

Neither can succeed without the other.

One of the greatest lessons I learned from my years in public administration is that leadership during political transition demands unusual courage. It requires leaders who continue making difficult decisions even when the political future is uncertain. Attempts to satisfy every political constituency often end by satisfying none, while the institution itself bears the greatest cost.

The Ghana School Feeding Programme is by no means unique.

Across Africa, many public institutions experience similar challenges whenever governments change. Valuable institutional memory is lost. Reform programmes stall. Administrative continuity weakens. Incoming administrations frequently inherit organisations that have spent months waiting rather than preparing.

This cycle is neither inevitable nor irreversible.

Governments can reduce institutional paralysis by strengthening civil service protections, professionalising programme management, preserving institutional memory, investing in monitoring and evaluation, and establishing governance systems that distinguish legitimate political oversight from day-to-day administrative decision-making.

Transitions are the hallmark of democratic success.

Institutional paralysis should never become their consequence.

If Ghana wishes to strengthen not only the Ghana School Feeding Programme but every major public institution, we must begin recognising that the greatest test of an institution is not how it performs during political stability.

It is how well it continues to function when political power changes hands.

Elections determine who governs. Institutions determine whether governments succeed. Democracies need both.

Professor Emeritus Acheampong Yaw Amoateng, PhD.