Background: A government saturated with committees
Many governments around the world rely on committees to vet policies, oversee implementation, and ensure stakeholder input. Recent commentary from political analyst Rui Tyitende highlights a recurring problem in several administrations: the system is overloaded with roles and committees to the point that work duplicates itself, causing delays and inefficiencies in service delivery.
While committees are intended to bring checks and balances to policy-making, an overabundance can create a bottleneck. When too many bodies are empowered to review a single issue, processes become fragmented, timelines stretch, and the urgency of public-facing outcomes can be lost in procedural layers. Analysts argue that this is not merely a paperwork issue but a governance design flaw that affects everyday citizens who rely on timely services.
What analysts are observing
Rui Tyitende notes that the ruling party’s announcements often come with a surge of new committees and subcommittees. The intention behind expanding governance structures is usually to improve representativeness and oversight. However, without clear delineation of mandate, decision rights, and accountability, the new bodies risk duplicating work that already exists in other agencies or councils.
Public service leaders report similar patterns on the ground. Frontline staff describe instances where policy changes require sign-off from multiple committees with overlapping scopes. Each body may request additional data, hold separate hearings, or insist on different reporting formats, effectively lengthening the path from policy idea to citizen-facing result.
Why too many committees slow service delivery
There are several mechanisms through which committee proliferation translates into delays:
- Redundant review cycles: Similar issues are reviewed by multiple groups, leading to repetitive data collection and analysis.
- Fragmented accountability: When responsibilities are dispersed, it becomes unclear who signs off on critical milestones.
- Resource strain: Committees pull staff away from service delivery and operational tasks, reducing the capacity to implement reforms.
- Public confusion: Citizens face inconsistent guidance as different committees interpret policies in slightly different ways.
What could be done: reforms to streamline governance
Experts propose several concrete reforms to reduce redundancy while preserving necessary checks and broad stakeholder input:
- Mandate clarity: Define the purpose, scope, and decision rights of each committee to prevent overlap. A simple remit document can prevent mission creep.
- One-window accountability: Create a primary coordinating body responsible for final approvals and cross-agency coherence, ensuring accountability for delays.
- Sunset clauses: Require periodic review of committees. If a body is no longer needed, it should be disbanded or merged.
- Outcome-focused reporting: Shift from process-heavy reporting to outcome metrics that reflect actual service delivery improvements.
- Stakeholder-driven efficiency audits: Regular, independent audits to identify bottlenecks and suggest simplifications in policy implementation.
Impact on the public and democratic legitimacy
Efficiency in governance is not only about speed; it is also about maintaining public trust. When services are delayed or inconsistent, citizens question the effectiveness of those in power. On the other hand, transparent reforms that simplify structures while preserving essential oversight can boost confidence in the system. The challenge for governments is balancing rigorous policy scrutiny with the need to deliver timely results that touch people’s lives.
Looking ahead: prioritizing citizen-centric reforms
As the debate continues, the central question remains: how can a government keep necessary checks without creating an endless chain of committees? The answer likely lies in deliberate design choices—clarifying mandates, consolidating overlapping bodies, and tying governance structures to measurable outcomes that matter most to the public. If implemented thoughtfully, reforms can reduce delays, improve services, and strengthen the legitimacy of the democratic process.
