Age and office

Last month the press reported that the British government had issued a call encouraging persons over 50 years old to take up apprenticeships, and offered incentives to businesses which got onboard with the initiative. Previously, it was reported, apprenticeships were only offered to younger people under age 25, but the policy shift was intended to help boost employment prospects later in life for the older segment of the population.

There are almost a million people aged between 50 and 64 who are not employed in the UK but state their willingness to work, according to a recent report published by the UK Department of Work and Pensions. The ‘default retirement age’ of 65 no longer exists in the UK as the state pension age is rising to cope with Britain’s aging population.

Just around the same time this news was filtering out of the UK, Public Security Minister Khemraj Ramjattan tersely announced that government had asked Chairman of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), retired Justice Cecil Kennard, to demit office, ostensibly because of his age. In addition, the President also decided to remove Justice Prem Persaud from chairmanship of the Public Utilities Commission, also on the grounds of age.

Their impending removal was said to be in keeping with government’s plan to establish an age requirement for persons who sit on state boards, agencies and commissions, according to President David Granger, and also to “pave the way for younger persons to take the lead.”

However, the abruptness of the announcement appeared to have stunned Justice Kennard, at least, who later disclosed that he asked for more time to wrap up ongoing work and to ensure a smooth transition. Indeed one would think that the retirement of both these Chairmen would have been handled more professionally, especially since the administration has commended the quality of their work. Quiet consultation, if it finds agreement, usually forestalls bad publicity and negative fallout when unusual action has to be taken in sensitive matters.

President Granger did, belatedly, apologise for the late notice given to the former Chancellor who has served Guyana for over 50 years. The President contextualized the move as arising out of the review of the conditions for membership of all state boards and described the retired Justice’s work on the PCA as “exemplary.” This review, the public learned, meant that long-serving politician and former Mayor Hamilton Green would not

be returned to his position as Chairman of the Central Housing & Planning Authority.

This unnecessary contretemps is symptomatic of the several public relations faux pas that have characterized the APNU+AFC coalition government since coming to power. It would seem that the administration has not yet figured out that implementation is not an event but a process – one which must be studiously followed if the carefully considered plan is to achieve the desired objectives with minimum fallout or unwelcome side effects.

Based on information released in the 2012 Population and Housing Census, the number of retirees in Guyana was 35,205 or 7.0 per cent of the working-age population, and the Bureau of Statistics had suggested that structural support programmes should be established in order to continue to make use of the skills and knowledge of retirees as the population ages.

Beyond the statements uttered, mostly in response to the criticisms levelled at the administration, there has been no clearly enunciated presentation on the policy regarding criteria for membership of state boards and for creating upward mobility for people in the public sector and also creating the atmosphere for younger persons to take the lead.

While indeed few opportunities exist for younger persons to assume leadership positions, the government must consider the fact that when older and often more senior workers reach retirement age and exit the workforce all together, a mass departure of that generation may usher in a new skills shortage if not carefully planned for and the remedies meticulously implemented. Government must make public this policy to show that reference to its existence or impending construction was not merely a circuitous exit from the controversy surrounding the ‘removal’ of Justice Kennard. After all it was no less a personage than the Minister of Public Security, Khemraj Ramjattan who is quoted as saying, “He is almost over 80 and the president

indicated to me that he sent him a letter and he will be removed …by the end of February.”

As government takes this strategic step towards developing and already implementing a policy to better utilise the potential of the younger segment of the population, it is important for long term succession planning to be considered and implemented as part of the wider policy changes. The departure of eminent stalwarts should not precede the appropriate training and knowledge transfer that would be expected to take place. This approach ensures a smooth transition with no disruption in the services being rendered, and prevents disjointed interactions among the staff through uncertainty caused by poorly disseminated information.

If indeed there is a focused policy looking at the ageing of the Guyana population as many among the ‘baby boomer’ generation reach or approach retirement age, then we should expect to see a more updated statistical representation of the age segments among our working and not working adult population along the lines of the British model represented above. What plans are in place for them, especially given the many questions surrounding the financial standing of the National Insurance Scheme?

If, however, this is merely about replacing a few octogenarians holding high office, then surely the administration has once again badly blundered and opened itself up to justified criticism in seeming to want to bundle out of office those who are serving with distinction in the capacities which they hold.

Or is it too much to ask for finesse in government in the era of Donald Trump?