In what he claims to be the interest of justice, the new Vice-President of Public Security, Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan, who is in charge of the police, has ordered the Commissioner of Police to sack one policeman, and stated that while he has no control over the Police Service Commission, he expects a similar decision from them in relation to another if its members aren’t to be asked to resign (Ramjattan rebuffs Nandlall over firing of torture cop. SN 6/6/2015). Heady days, some would say!
To recap, in 2009, two police officers tortured a teenager by burning his testicles at the Leonora police station. The matter went to civil court, where the policemen were found liable and the government was ordered to pay damages. In January 2015, to much public outcry, these same two police officers were promoted by the Police Service Commission and the commissioner of police.
In comes the immediate past attorney general, Mr. Anil Nandlall, with a strong condemnation of the vice president. According to him, Mr. Ramjattan has no authority to direct either the commissioner of police or the Police Service Commission to dismiss the policemen. Under the Police Act, the commissioner has superintendence over the day-to-day management of the police and the minister has the authority to provide and monitor policy guidelines. In relation to the Commission, article 226 of the constitution is clear: ‘In the exercise of its functions a commission shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.’
It appears to me that while there is near unanimity that the two policemen behaved in a despicable manner and should not have been kept in the force, much less promoted, there is not a consensus about the manner in which Mr. Ramjattan has acted or about Mr. Nandlall’s response.
These are early days for the regime and to prevent any future missteps and unnecessary controversy it may be best at this time for it to state in explicit terms what kind of relationship we can expect between ministers and their bureaucracies.
We have been here before, and from the standpoint of views expressed previously in this column (Rohee, Hicken: the tyranny of ideas SN 27/2/2013), both the vice president and the former AG have respectively overreached and overstated their case.
During the disturbance and killing of protesters in Linden in July 2012, minister of the police Mr. Clement Rohee came under a barrage of criticism for regularly interfering in the day-to-day operations of the force. So intimidated was the poor minister that he argued that a level of interference was historic but that he only contacted the police on the ground in Linden after the fatal shootings!
I argued then that our understanding of the relationship that should exist between politicians who supervise government bureaucracies and those in charge of the actual management of those organisations is too archaic and restrictive. It came to us via the 19th century German sociologist Max Weber and is rooted in the notion that the public service should be politically detached and hierarchically supervised.
But modern administrative theory and practice “recognised that this ‘ideal type’ does not exist in practice and that politicians and their political staffers usually are very much involved in issues of management just as bureaucrats are enmeshed in influencing policy, legislation, etc. From theorists and practitioners alike, our view of a clear divide between policy and implementation appears unrealistic and anachronistic” (Kenneth Kernaghan, Politics, policy and public servants: political neutrality revisited,” Canadian Public Administration 1976).
In terms of international practice in democratic polities and in relation to the civil service, Sir Michael Quinlan, the distinguished British defense strategist and permanent secretary, claimed that “Ministers and Permanent secretaries have in some sense parallel responsibilities. The Permanent Secretary’s responsibilities run to the Minister and are included within his/hers; they do not run separately, … I think it incorrect, unrealistic and undesirable to suppose that Ministers ‘should not [in the sense of ought not] get involved in the actual running of Departments” (British House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, 2006).
From Edward Stewart, a former senior Canadian public servant in the province of Ontario we hear in 1989 that: ‘the belief that at the higher levels of government one can keep political and bureaucratic roles distinct is ‘naive and non-productive’ (Cabinet Government in Ontario: A View from the Inside).
The New Zealand Government 2008 Cabinet Manual on the relationship between minister and the public service stated, “On a day-to-day basis a Minister will have contact with the senior officials best able to provide the necessary information or advice. Departmental staff and the Minister’s office should keep the chief executive informed, at least in general terms, of any contact between the department and the Minister.”
What was taking place in Linden was as much a political as a policing issue. But this apart, given the above perspective of the minister/bureaucracy relationship, I argued that in not attempting to find out and take timely action about what was going on before the killings, Minister Rohee, armed with an antiquated view of what his relationship with the police should have been, quite unwittingly may have contributed to the deaths of the protesters.
Indeed, perhaps thinking he was on good ground, this same Minister Rohee attempted to use non-interference as the reason for his inaction when the two policemen when promoted. (‘Nothing to do with me’ Rohee says in response to Leonora ‘torture’ cops promotion. SN 20/1/2015). I argued then that he could not in this manner scamper from his responsibility for he had sufficient room to establish for both Police Service Commission and his ministry a vision and policies that should have prevented such promotions.
So I do not hold the position that a minister should not, at the most senior level, be involved in the operations of her/his organisation. In the weak bureaucratic state we are in, such actions may well be necessary if one is to be assured of proper policy implementation. But all of this must be achieved with due respect for the law and the absence of bullishness and bravado.
The public servant exists to provide equitable and indiscriminate service to the community. Ministers are also there to equitably serve, but no one expects them to do so in as wholly a manner as the public servant. To some extent the entire tribe are usually partisan: taking special care of the constituencies who placed them in government. As a matter of fact, at election periods they routinely skew the entire national budget to provide their party with a political edge!
In my view, we have not yet arrived at a proper cultural understanding of this subtle context of law and permissiveness. However, if the police force, that can deprive citizens of their freedom and perhaps even their lives, is to be respected it must generally be viewed as the purveyor of objective investigations and prosecutions. The public must be encouraged to cease to believe that its decisions can be routinely influenced and directed by partisan politicians – even those who claim to have justice on their side!
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
