The UK has seen the so-called efficiency gains AI is giving some industries and has decided to give its government the same treatment.
They’ve just announced that all 400,000 civil servants in England and Wales will receive AI training starting this year. The goal is to help them use AI to automate boring tasks. We’re talking stuff like scanning public comments, handling emails, processing forms.
On paper, it sounds brilliant. Who wouldn’t want faster service from government departments?
But as I read this, I couldn’t help but wonder: could Zimbabwe pull off something like this? And should we even try?
The potential
AI could definitely help us. You don’t need reminding just how our public sector is slow despite being overstaffed if you think about it. AI could help process permit applications, analyse data, even draft routine reports.
If used well, this could mean:
- Faster service when we interact with the government
- More productive government workers
- Cost savings (the UK has already seen this in Scotland)
Imagine not having to wait months for a simple document because someone had to manually go through a pile of papers.
The hurdles
But let’s be real for a minute.
Many government offices still rely on pen and paper. Reliable internet is not everywhere. Frequent power cuts are a thing even though we are currently in a decent state.
So, the question is: AI tools need stable internet and working computers, are we ready for that investment?
Then there’s the skills gap. We have some tech-savvy civil servants, but many still struggle with basic IT. If Excel is a challenge, AI training might be asking too much, to be honest.
We also can’t forget the cost. The UK is rich. We are not. Training tens of thousands of people and upgrading IT systems will cost millions. Could we justify that kind of spending when basic services still need fixing?
The risks
Let’s not ignore the downsides either:
AI tools can have bias. Imagine automated systems that unfairly reject applications based on bad data. That’s the danger, we have no idea just how extensively or accurately the government has captured data over the years. If it’s bad, as is reasonable to assume, the AI tools would work against us.
Job losses would surely follow. Some clerical roles might disappear, and therefore we can expect heavy resistance from staff and unions. Many a good initiative has died because of civil servant resistance, AI probably wouldn’t be the exception.
Then there is the fact that we don’t exactly have a good track record of auditing complex government systems. How would we make sure AI is used responsibly?
So… should we?
I think, yes, but slowly and carefully.
We could start with small pilots in departments that already have the capacity, like ZIMRA or Registrar General’s Office.
We’d need to invest heavily in basic digital skills first, not just AI.
And we must set up strong data protection and some crazy good ways to properly check everything before rolling out anything that affects many people.
Otherwise, this could become another expensive project that delivers little, while the real issues in service delivery remain unsolved.
We must walk first
AI in the civil service sounds exciting—and it can work. But for Zimbabwe, the basics must come first. Without that foundation, we’ll be trying to run before we can walk.
Regarding the potential cost savings
The UK isn’t guessing here. In Scotland alone, one AI pilot saved 75,000 workdays, which came to about £20 million (about US $25 million) in salaries etc.
In another trial, 20,000 civil servants using AI saved 26 minutes per person per day or about two weeks’ worth of work per year.
It doesn’t sound like much but when you consider the number of employees in question, the UK hopes to scale this up to £45 billion a year in savings across public services.
Now, what if Zimbabwe tried this?
We’ve got about 200,000 civil servants. If we trained about 19% of them (matching Scotland’s ratio), that’s 38,000 staff.
Scottish staff saved about 15 workdays each. If Zim staff matched that, and given our average civil servant earns about US $3,600/year, those 15 days would represent roughly 6% of their annual pay, about US $216 saved per person.
Multiply that by 38,000 staff, and you get around US $8 million in potential annual savings.
This would be helpful but not really some out of this world result.
However, when you consider we’ve run digital training programmes before with questionable results you are forced to conclude that any large scale AI training in Zimbabwe will most likely be a waste of time and resources for everyone.
That said, this is one of those times where you hope your’e stupidly wrong.
Leave a Reply