The charge of discrimination
Given the entrenched ethno-political polarisation in the country and the willingness of any number of politicians to exploit this, it is no surprise that there have been shrill declarations recently about discrimination against IndoGuyanese and other ills. Following the seismic shift in the political configuration on May 11 last year, the opposition has groped for grounds on which to prosecute the traditional adversarial campaign against the government. Its mounting of the steed of discrimination is similar in many ways to the Hoyte PNC in 1992 after that other seismic change in government following democratic elections.
What is needed in this debate, lest it be bastardised and inflamed by pure political rhetoric are details from both sides of the equation. There have been cases of removals and appointments by the new government that have raised valid questions about fairness, propriety and openness. When these cases arise it is for the government, its ministries and various agencies to convince the public of the appropriateness of its actions and seek to assuage the protestations of the opposition, which if left unchecked would filter down to its constituents and adopted wholesale.
The standard of governance that must be delivered to the people by the APNU+AFC coalition is one of responsiveness to public concerns no matter which direction they come from. There must be no hauteur or arrogance or unwillingness to present a defence. The government and its officers are servants of the people and it is their obligation to deliver. While there would undoubtedly be trust and confidence in the government to do the right things based on their public pronouncements and 2015 manifesto, these are absolutely no substitute for institutional checks, openness and the availability of information.
No appointment or removal of a person, particularly to or from a senior position, should occur without a cogent explanation. The government clearly doesn’t communicate well internally neither does it have a well-honed public relations mechanism. The appointment of the Chair of the Bid Protest Committee (BPC) is a case in point. The Minister of State, Harmon ventured to say that the Attorney General would be the chair of the BPC when that clearly couldn’t be the case. This was followed by an advertisement from the Ministry of Finance announcing an employee of the Attorney General’s Chambers, Renee McDonald as the chair. Weeks later, Ms McDonald’s appointment apparently disintegrated though Minister Harmon was still insisting up to a few days ago that Ms Donald had not been appointed. So how does the government explain the advertisement? This is a prime example of the confusion that creates doubt in the public’s mind and raises two germane issues: transparency in arrangements and suitability of candidates. Could Ms McDonald have even been considered a suitable nominee for the committee to adjudicate challenges to major awards in the public procurement system? Shouldn’t this person have long experience in procurement matters? The same question could well be raised about the new candidate that has been floated for this position. So, too, can questions be raised about the other members who have been invited to sit on the committee. What is the depth of their experience and through what process were they chosen? Was there meaningful consultation with people who should know or are these just jobs for the boys and friends of the present political directorate? Unless the coalition can provide convincing answers to these questions it will be vulnerable to criticisms that it is not choosing the most worthy candidates and thereby discriminating.
The methodology for selecting candidates can also be rife with unfairness. Thankfully the process for a Commissioner-General of the Guyana Revenue Authority has been completed. This is the type of appointment where the right candidate has to be found and where there must be no residual questions about the selection. The difficulties could arise from the composing of the selection panel. So where one can justifiably argue that the selection panel has decided solely on the merits of the candidate one may also wish to consider who appointed the members of the panel and whether the person who made the appointments wielded control over
the process and actually influenced it. The question could also be raised as to whether the invitation for applications could be so fashioned as to be unduly restrictive or favourable to only persons with work experience in Guyana or the Caribbean, thereby working against suitably qualified candidates from other places. Good governance is not a question of trusting in supposedly “good” people, it is the application of principled behaviour which can withstand the most withering scrutiny.
PPP executive and parliamentary Chief Whip Gail Teixeira has presented information to show what her party believes is the skewing of board appointments in favour of one ethnic group. It is difficult to just look at numbers and derive conclusions about overall picture and the difficulties in finding appropriate candidates. Yet, the government must be acutely aware that in an ethnically touchy society and particularly in the constituencies of the opposition it must do its utmost to present boards that are balanced in terms of gender, ethnicity and skills. It mustn’t choose the easy way out and simply pick those it feels political affinity with. It has to make a good faith effort to broaden its search and to reach out to those who are not its partners of first choice.
The rhetoric between the government and the opposition on these matters has been elevated by the absence of substantial talks between the two sides. While the PPP has not shown any inclination to dialogue, the onus is on the governing coalition to create the enabling environment for such engagement. It has thus far failed to do this.