Minister Lawrence’s apology apart, gov’t should put together plan of action on anti-discrimination and good governance

Dear Editor,

Should Minister Lawrence issue an apology to the full satisfaction of all, nothing in the country’s administrative and political governance would meaningfully and sustainably change. For we are focused exclusively on the “offensiveness” of the statement. The opportunity, therefore, is likely to be missed to discuss the redesign of our public administration that even should a minister or a public servant want to illegitimately discriminate in the award of public benefits, the system could discourage, prevent, detect, or correct such actions. An apology with nothing more takes us nowhere.

From the published responses to Minister Lawrence’s speech, persons want three concerns to be addressed: (i) preventing any government from engaging in illegitimate discrimination, (ii) correcting the wrongs from historic political discrimination, and (iii) encouraging greater participation of marginalized or under-represented groups of the population in key public spheres.

These three concerns are not new. And while the coalition government can claim the improvements in public procurement and local government as evidence of its non-discriminatory posture, it has chosen not to sing often on that theme. Indeed, the government appears to have dropped the idea of jumping on the good governance platform as a way to radically distinguish itself from the dark politics of the PPP.

But, for now, back to discrimination. The first of the concerns listed above (preventing systemic government discrimination) boils down to discouraging, preventing, detecting, or correcting the practice of “jobsfor-the-boys” (or “jobs-for-the-partycomrades”). The country already has a host of constitutional and statutory provisions against discrimination. Furthermore, we can copy from several public institutions right here in Guyana that can claim to meet these standards. As one model, I can point to the staff recruitment and student application processes at the University of Guyana (despite a few issues in recent times). I am also encouraged by the post-exams student placement system at the Ministry of Education. As highly non-discriminatory systems, what they share in common are clear and preset rules and criteria, public notification and transparency (UG, for example, advertises its teaching vacancies as a norm, and its student application system is accessible online to the students themselves), checks-and-balances (three senior persons are required to vet a student application to UG), and an accessible complaints mechanism.

The second and third concerns above (righting historic acts of discrimination, and encouraging greater participation of marginalized or under-represented groups) are, admittedly, more politically challenging. For they require the government to actually and openly discriminate, but in a legitimate way. Affirmative action programmes in contract awards or employment in the US, South Africa, Canada and other countries are examples of legitimate government discrimination to correct social and economic inequities or injustices. Such government actions, however, demand public debate, acceptance, and full transparency. Personalized or private affirmative actions by ministers and other political operators are illegitimate and, in any case, not fit for purpose given the scale of the problem. The set-aside of 20% of Guyana government contracts for small firms is overdue but of the right calibre. What I advised in a previous letter to the editor (‘Public Procurement Commission must have social agenda’, in SN 17th May, 2013) remains relevant today: that “the role of public procurement as a socio-economic force and instrument (social procurement) must be duly recognized and acted upon”; and that government, as the country’s largest purchaser of goods, services and works, must accordingly assess and target how these public funds are distributed across firms and individuals, races, genders, regions and communities.

The non-normalization and eradication of illegitimate discrimination and the promotion of legitimate varieties can do much to address the ethnic and social concerns of Guyanese and the political concerns of their parties. I would strongly advise the coalition government that, Minister Lawrence’s mea culpa apart, to put together a plan of action on anti-discrimination and good governance in general. Anything less would leave the government fumbling around badly in a political storm.

Yours faithfully, Sherwood Lowe