Constitutionally, the government statement is the right performance evaluation tool

Historically, the content of ministerial statement submitted to the House of Representatives can be mostly described as detailed, theoretical, unclear, unspecified and unmeasurable in general. Also, no return to the statement after the government obtains the confidence of the House of Representatives.

I understand that the constitution text on the ministerial statement is not merely for the government after being formed to obtain the confidence of the parliament. It is a living ongoing document and a permanent reference on which the parliament relies on judging government performance.

Therefore, the ministerial statement is supposed to consist of a number of goals and objectives which have several programmes and projects linked to specific annual performance indicators. I suggest that the number of which does not exceed 50 indicators.

Indicators cover the main areas of government work economically, financially and socially, such as GDP, public debt, public debt as a percentage of GDP, budget performance and deficits, trade balance, current account, direct investment, official reserves of foreign currencies, inflation, poverty, unemployment, education, health, environment, competitiveness, anti-corruption, accidents rates, crimes rates ....

I suggest that the ministerial statement, that submitted by the government to gain confidence on the basis of it from the House of Representatives, should include the most important indicators of economic and social performance and at pre-determined annual targeted levels.

I propose that this ministerial statement should include a number of international indicators that are determined with great care and in line with the basic missions and functions of the government.

The government should submit to His Majesty the King and to the House of Representatives and the House of Senators published periodic performance reports (annual, bi annual, quarterly) that compare the actual results of these indicators with the targeted levels and the actual results for several previous years.

Consequently, these indicators are predetermined (non-selective) and have comparisons with targets and previous years (several years, not one year). The results of all these indicators, whether positive or negative, should be presented for the purposes of analysing and developing them in a transparent professional way and away from intentional selection or concealment.

This constitutes an objective and reliable reference to evaluate and judge the effectiveness of government policies. It also represents a tool for judging the level of government performance.