Power plays its most crucial role in this country not at Parliament, but within the Cabinet – that mysterious government forum where ministers and state officials choose programmes and policies.
The Amalia Hydro project, the One Laptop programme, the Berbice Bridge all received their stamp of approval from the collective pool of government leaders that forms the Cabinet.
One can assume that the same culture that exists within the ruling party, which exclusively forms the government, despite the token civic component, would dictate what form Cabinet takes; how it forms decisions and arrives at conclusions.
Within the ruling party we see a collective decision making process, where group-think seems to prevail.
Within the ruling party, powerful party leaders discourage individual dissent, and though there seems to be some vigour of debate within the ranks, the party sticks to a collectivist decision-making process.
The dictatorial and decisive way the party dealt with three of its senior, most respected leaders – Khemraj Ramjattan, Moses Nagamootoo, and former Speaker of the National Assembly Ralph Ramkarran – shows the extent of the party’s intolerance for independent thinking.
Does this same intolerance for independent thinking prevail within Cabinet?
How much room does the collective within Cabinet allow for an individual minister to exercise initiative, vision and innovative thinking?
The modus operandi of the ruling party, even now in 2012, revolves around the ideology of collective control. We see this within the party structure, especially in how the Central Executive body chooses the party leader.
Today, with the party General Secretary, Donald Ramotar, holding the office of Executive President, one can reasonably assume that the Cabinet over which he presides functions with the same culture as prevails within his party structure.
How much room does this leave for innovative vision? In a culture based on group-think, collectivist decisions and intolerance of independent thinking, how free is the visionary government minister to break out of the rigid mould?
Such a collectivist culture stifles the nation’s development.
At the end of the day, the philosophy of governance that emerges out of the party’s dogmatic ideology determines how successful this country could become.
Government rides on a philosophy of governance, even if it has shed the rigours of ideology. And that philosophy is an offshoot of the internal ideology of the party. In other words, the government runs on the philosophy of the party’s ideology.
The ideology of the ruling party remains what it has always been: the view that collectivist group-think is best. This is based, of course, on its long history of dogmatic communism.
Though we do not see dogmatic communism in government today, we do see the underlying philosophy of that kind of view. Government believes in collectivist thought, and group-think, and thus doggedly sacrifices individual initiative, innovative thinking and creative genius.
What we have left is a bland, monotonous top-down management style that refuses to tolerate dissent, that arrogantly orders lower ranking officers around, and that remains stuck in old, worn-out ideas.
Even the big development projects that emerge from Cabinet’s closed doors fail to inspire the nation.
Lower level staff left to manage these projects tackle the task with apathy. Mismanagement, inefficient execution and gross neglect become the order of the day.
People today do not want to be told what to do. People want to participate in decisions that affect their lives. People want to feel they are empowered partners with their government.
With Parliament so far removed from inspiring people to feel they are participating in the governance of their society, the average citizen bows his or her head in apathy.
Governance of our society starts with that culture that pervades the halls of Cabinet. People sense that Cabinet functions above them, beyond their reach or influence, and they protest in apathy.
Who within this government would dare step up to offer constructive criticism of State functions? The individual leader in such a draconian culture fears reprimand, the fall of the collective axe.
Inside party man Dr Cheddi ‘Joey’ Jagan once campaigned against this culture within the ruling party, claiming that a “gang of eight” had hijacked the Central Executive.
A widespread view still prevails that this “gang” maintains a stranglehold of the party, and the government. Many people in the society believe that former President Bharrat Jagdeo maintains a strong behind-the-scenes influence on the current government.
This kind of stranglehold stifles forward movement, innovative progress and the contribution to the society of individual initiative and vision.
When we strangulate the spirit of of the individual to exercise his or her creative potential, we kill the creative energy of our people.
The scarce resource of skills left in this country then becomes useless to us, because the vicious cycle kicks in where a skilled person hits a ceiling of limitations, and either settles in mediocre existence, or migrates.
In education, healthcare, social services, amerindian development, economics, environment, what could a visionary minister accomplish if collective cabinet strangulates his or her ideas and vision?
A minister should be free to listen to the people of the country, to consult and solicit ideas from citizens, and to then form new pathways to progress, knowing full well that Cabinet would allow him or her to carry out the task.
Instead, the culture of group-think, more concerned with political survival than progress and development, kicks new ideas and visions out the door with a sickening thud of finality.
So this most powerful of forum, our Cabinet, becomes the biggest albatross around the nation’s neck, sinking us further into a society of worn-out ideas, old modes of operation and collective apathy.
Unless we transform the philosophy of how we conduct Cabinet meetings in this country, unless we start encouraging vibrant debate and visionary thinking and innovative creativity among the ministers of government and State officials, we would remain stuck, even as the 21st century rolls into a new knowledge age of individual empowerment.
