## Disciplinary sanctions: what implications for the state and governance?
On Friday, April 11, the government made a decision that already arouses various exchanges: disciplinary sanctions against State agents will now have to be communicated to the Head of State beforehand. This announcement, made by government spokesperson Patrick Muyaya, during the 39ᵉ meeting of the Council of Ministers, is part of a broader framework for strengthening transparency and social peace in public enterprises and state establishments.
### Transparency between need and risk
This initiative highlights a fundamental issue: transparency. The prior communication of disciplinary sanctions to the Head of State could be perceived as a means of establishing greater rigor in the management of human resources within public institutions. This could also be a way to limit abuse of power and ensure fair treatment of disciplinary cases.
However, this decision also raises questions. It poses the problem of an excessive possible centralism in decision -making. Indeed, if each disciplinary sanction must go through the head of state, this could lead to a bureaucratization of the processes, thus slowing down decisions which should perhaps be taken quickly and independently by officials trained in the application of procedures.
## The training objectives: an optimal future?
In addition to this measure, the President of the Republic entrusted the Prime Minister with the mission to organize training sessions for managers of public enterprises and ministries. These training courses aim to provide an increased understanding of disciplinary procedures as to prevent abuse.
This is where the initiative can really take on its full meaning. Strengthen the skills of those who manage public enterprises could indeed lead to an improvement in governance and more informed management of human resources. What would, however, the resources devoted to these training courses? At what rate would they take place? Wouldn’t the load of these training courses risk telescoping with other priorities already established within institutions?
### Balance between authority and responsibility
In addition, it is imperative to reflect on the implications of this decision on the dynamic of authority and responsibility. The concentration of decisions relating to sanctions at the level of the head of state could potentially create a perception of impunity among the agents if political pressures influence disciplinary decisions. In the long term, this could become an obstacle to the establishment of a climate of responsibility and merit.
On the other hand, if transparency and reinforced control can be accompanied by a culture of responsibility, such a measure can also contribute to public confidence towards institutions. How to ensure that such transparency does not, on the contrary, weaken the ability of field managers to act in real time in the face of drifts?
### Conclusion: a measure to be considered with caution
In short, the decision to demand that disciplinary sanctions be communicated to the Head of State as well as the organization of training to strengthen practices within public enterprises are measures which seem, on paper, to aim for an improvement in governance. However, they come with their own challenges and must be implemented with rigor and discernment.
Discussions around these initiatives are crucial and deserve to be deepened. Experts invited to look into these issues, such as Professor Jean de Dieu Minengu, Valéry Madianga and Alain Lomandja, will know how to enlighten the debate, ensuring that the need for transparency does not come up against that of fluid and responsive governance.
Thus, the implementation of this measure will be to be monitored closely, in search of a balance between authority, responsibility and transparency, always keeping in mind the ultimate objective: to best serve the population and strengthen confidence in institutions.