Imihigo: Lessons in premature jubilation

What a difference a week makes. A fortnight ago district Mayors from across the country were in jubilant mood. Over television and radio, most had claimed to have aced the Imihigo (performance evaluation) for the FY 2013/14 to the rate of 100 percent. The celebratory mood was across the whole country with most Mayors congratulating themselves for the very satisfactory marks they had assigned to themselves. Not so fast. Hold the champagne, someone should have told them. As a matter of fact, some did just that, but in a more diplomatic manner. Just days into the celebrations the Prime Minister, Mr. Anastase Murekezi delivered what should have been taken as an ominous warning for those with ears to hear. At a gathering of district officials, the Prime Minister urged them to be realistic in setting Imihigo targets that are “achievable, sustainable and answering our specific concern of being a self-reliant nation.” He was not alone. Immediately following a Mayor’s presentation on his achievements for the year, a minister was reported to have pointed out that “world over, there is no city that runs with no challenges, otherwise this presentation seems unrealistic. We have to be realistic with the challenges. That is the only way we can confront them.” I suppose that some perceptive Mayors noticed that there was trouble in the paradise and that perhaps they had popped the champagne a bit prematurely. A little background is in order. In its mandate as overall coordinator of government programmes, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is charged with monitoring key national development priorities, most important of which is Vision 2020, EDPRS-2, and the seven-year Government Programme, among others. It is for this reason that Imihigo, as a tool for accelerating these national priorities, fall under the mandate of the PMO despite the fact that districts are under the direct political responsibility of the Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC). This probably explains why it is the PMO, and not Minaloc, that conducts the evaluation. Now, district leaders were celebrating because they had conducted evaluations of themselves in which they had “discovered” that they had performed marvellously. This is to be expected. Indeed, if most of us evaluated ourselves at our places of work, we would reach similar conclusions, that we were exceptional employees, and, where possible, recommend a salary increment for ourselves. It’s called EGO. It doesn’t allow us to conduct a genuine assessment of ourselves. While it is true that districts in the past did not evaluate themselves, the task-force that did so usually reached results that were very similar to those that districts assigned themselves. For instance, prior to this year, the best (ranked 1st) performing district scored 98% while the worst (ranked 30th) scored 90%. In such a scenario, both performed excellently. This year the PMO decided to twist things up a bit. It hired an independent local Think Tank to conduct the assessment. According to a local vernacular website, evaluators considered every item in the district Imihigo, measuring it against its contribution to national development priorities, and using this as a basis for scoring districts. One of two practices was uncovered. I will explain by way of example. Consider two Mayors, districts X and Y. Both promise to build roads. District X promises to build 300 metres and completes them within the Financial Year, scores 100% on that target. District Y promises to build 20 kilometres, only succeeds to build 10 kilometres, and scores 50%. Which begs the question: Which of the two Mayors has performed better on the output of road construction? Assuming that both Mayors are motivated by the desire to rank the highest at the end of the Financial Year, one of two things is possible. Either Mayor X does not consider road construction as a priority in his district or he is exploiting the scoring system by manipulating the design of his Imihigo and focusing on soft, and easy to deliver, targets. Using that logic, Mayor Y could be said to be either naïve or simply a person of integrity. What if the output in question was access to water or electricity? Manipulating the scoring system to gain high marks could be fun and games, if only these were not linked to real people their livelihoods. To be sure, crooked Mayors are an exception to the rule. Most want to do good for their residents and would welcome the opportunity to learn how to design Imihigo which lead to positive changes in their lives. The real challenge, therefore, is to distinguish between the two kinds of Mayors. Meanwhile, after taking into consideration the value of each item against national development indicators, the best performing district scored 76%, with the worst scoring 70%. In the process, two important lessons were learned: one, to take Imihigo seriously; the other, on the dangers of premature celebrations.

Opinions

Imihigo: Lessons in premature jubilation