Economics: An open letter to An Taoiseach answers some of the questions posed by Bertie Ahern in the Dáil last Tuesday

Dear Comrade,

Last Tuesday you spotted an important dilemma: how do we recruit outside people to managerial posts in the civil service, while motivating those in existing ones? The idea has found some support from fellow socialist Pat Rabbitte. Tony Blair - another man of the left - has implemented this policy in the United Kingdom. I'll come back later to the problems this has led to.

The main question now for you is how, as a socialist, you reconcile such a policy with social partnership. I wish to share your burden, in a spirit of solidarity.

Let us start with a cast-iron socialist principle: the public sector must serve the people and not its management. If this means bringing in expertise from the private sector, so be it. Even Lenin said that we must sometimes buy rope from capitalists (although his intention was to hang them with it).

But when responding to fellow socialist Pat Rabbitte on this issue, you replied that the proposal seemed grandiose to you. Let us hope so, comrade, let us hope so. Solutions for the public sector need to match the breadth of its problems.

You then went on to say: "I have spent many years working with civil servants on the old relativity claims, equity claims and others, and can foresee a nightmare of arguments against this move."

Of course, reactionaries are everywhere. But we have the tools with which to combat such conservatism. Was not the purpose of benchmarking to consign this mentality to the dustbin of history? Courage, comrade, courage! If we give in now, we will only strengthen those opposed to benchmarking.

Their views are ideologically unsound and based on a failure to see the future. But they will claim vindication if benchmarking pay increases do not result in meritocracy and change.

And such an outcome could only further accelerate the emerging class consciousness of the taxpaying proletariat.

What I liked most about your answer to comrade Rabbitte was the following sentence: "For those who work hard in the system - and do their best at executive officer, higher executive officer, staff officer, assistant principal officer and principal officer levels - what happens to their morale when they reach 52 or 53 years of age after serving committees of the Oireachtas and the public service, and undertaking evening degrees, which many do, only to have someone from outside come in?"

Thank you, comrade, for bringing us to the very nub of the problem. The staff grades you mention are bygone distinctions from an upstairs-downstairs world when merchant looked down on artisan and artisan looked down on labourer. The civil service replicated this ideology of tuppence looking down on halfpence.

We have now broken free from such shackles. Our economy is now progressive and revolutionary. It needs a progressive and revolutionary civil service. We must fill it with dedicated cadres of management accountants, IT specialists, human resource managers and environmental scientists.

We might even find room for the odd economist (don't worry, we can vet them for any right-wing sympathies). Proper human resource management and functional job descriptions are the future of our civil service.

But what, you ask, about the morale of those who will feel passed over? A fair question comrade, a fair question. Again we come back to socialist principles. If civil servants are indeed the best for any promotion that is advertised, then the people deserve their talents and they will be promoted. But if they are not then the needs of the people must come before the pride of any individual. The expression "passed over" is incompatible with the new lexicon of socialist terminology. It passed into history. As the late Brian Lenihan (also a socialist) once said, we must adjust our minds to a new century.

More to the point, civil servants are well rewarded for time served. They receive generous annual salary increments, pensions and an immunity from job loss that more than compensates for having to compete for promotion.

These conditions are well in excess of the taxpaying proletariat who bear this cost on their back. And let's face it, there is a growing view among the masses that the public sector is not exactly serving their needs. Provoking their anger by resisting change is not a good strategy coming up to an election.You do raise an important issue when you ask: "If the person entered at a very high level, what would happen vis-a-vis other levels and assistant secretaries in other departments?"

As mentioned earlier, when the British civil service introduced private sector managers into senior roles, some demotivation and resentment resulted. But this was because the revolution was incomplete. At the moment both British and Irish civil services are like the former Soviet bloc - hard to get into and almost impossible to get out of.

That is no longer an acceptable brand of socialism. Rather, liberation theology is the answer. Regular opportunities for a two-way flow of staff at all levels between public and private sectors will give new opportunities to civil servants, and expose those in the private sector to a culture of integrity and public mindedness that is unique to the civil service.

We should build fraternal links of understanding between both parts of our economy. A more moderate (Menshevik) approach would be to create two career tracks in the civil service.

A "safe" one for the more risk-averse could offer comfortable salary progression, immunity from job loss but limited promotion. The other would be a "fast" one with better pay and promotional opportunities, but with more risk and responsibility. Limited terms for all management grades would also improve the rate of flux and allow bad managers to be removed. After all, can any good socialist accept the endurance of feudal barons?

Our reforms must be root and branch, comrade, root and branch! Leadership and reward must go to the brave and competent. Anachronistic job titles must go, as must the self-defeating envy of ability. Risk must go with reward, especially as public service pay is now linked with the private sector. With these principles we can make our public sector into a paradise for its workers and a true servant of the people.

Yours in solidarity, etc.