HIBAPRESS – A. Mahyaoui
As faces succeed each other in positions of responsibility, and names change who manage public affairs, a fundamental question re-emerges with urgency: Does changing officials lead to real change in public policies, or is it limited to changing people while the same imbalances continue and the same problems recur?
Citizens' expectations are not tied to names alone, but rather to the extent of the new officials' ability to bring about a tangible transformation in their daily reality, whether it concerns improving public services, developing infrastructure, creating job opportunities, strengthening spatial justice, or enhancing the quality of education and health.
The renewal of elites and the rotation of responsibilities are important in institutional life, but their true value remains linked to the accompanying change in management methods, clarity of vision, and efficiency in implementing programs and projects. The citizen is no longer satisfied with promises or speeches, but rather measures the performance of officials by what is achieved on the ground, and by the extent to which the decisions taken reflect on their daily lives.
In this context, the importance of moving from the logic of managing files with traditional methods to adopting more open and effective approaches emerges, based on linking responsibility with accountability, consolidating transparency, and evaluating public policies according to measurable results, while ensuring citizen participation in identifying local priorities.
Furthermore, changing officials should not turn into a mere occasion for rearranging positions and distributing roles, but rather should constitute an opportunity to review past choices, identify areas of weakness, and correct imbalances that hindered the implementation of projects or prevented the achievement of stated goals.
Conversely, evaluating any management experience requires fairness and objectivity, by distinguishing between the responsibility of individuals, the constraints of institutions, the limits of competencies, and the available financial resources. Not every setback is necessarily linked to mismanagement, just as changing faces in itself does not constitute a guarantee for achieving reform.
The real challenge facing various officials remains to transform changes in positions into changes in results, and to move from managing promises to achieving gains.
The citizen wants to see a tangible impact of the decisions taken, to feel an improvement in services and facilities, and to feel that their voice and expectations are present at the core of public policies.
Ultimately, the question remains open to both officials and elected representatives: Are we facing a new phase in public affairs management methods, or are faces changing while policies remain the same, and expectations are renewed without finding their full path to implementation?
