Governing any nation nowadays is not an easy task, and in the case of Guyana there are some additional complexities which are too well known to be worth enumerating. Nevertheless, such complexities have to be taken into account when those in office make decisions, more especially if they have committed to operating in a certain way before they came into government.
The present administration consists of a somewhat unstable coalition with a superfluity of ministers. The reason for the excess, it would appear, was to satisfy all the various factions, including those within APNU itself after the terms of the Cummingsburg Accord had been fulfilled. The principle of ensuring adequate representation by all sides of the coalition in cabinet, however, seems to have extended itself into other areas as well. At least, that was the impression which the public gained last week after the announcement of the membership of some of the more important state boards.
As it was, the composition of those boards set off a firestorm which took the government off guard. Minister of State Joseph Harmon was reported by this newspaper yesterday as saying he thought the criticisms both unfair and premature, going on to observe that so far the membership of less than half of the boards had been published. Presumably, citizens are to infer from this that more caution will be exercised in the case of the boards which have not yet been made public, although it might be noted that the ones which have created the furore are among the most important, covering as they do the finance and agricultural sectors.
It was its promises of inclusiveness and a punctilious adherence to the rule of law that the electorate paid attention to when the coalition came into office, and unlike in the case of its predecessors, it will not be allowed to abandon them easily. So if, therefore, it thinks that where appointments are concerned it only has to engage in dickering with its political partners to see that its own internal considerations of coalition ‘balance’ are satisfied and need not bother about anything else, it will be quickly disabused of that notion.
The major criticism comes from a direction the government obviously did not anticipate, and it relates to the international commitments of this country as well as our own constitution which requires there should be no discrimination based on gender, and that provisions should be made to ensure the equal status of men and women in every sphere of life. It was the Guyana Human Rights Association which in the first instance drew attention to the fact that only 9.4% of the chairs of the 32 state boards in the finance sector were female, and that in terms of the membership, “only 18% are females which represents 22 persons out of a possible 125; and of that figure, one woman serves on three boards and another on two.”
Subsequent to that press statement, Andaiye, among several other things referred in a letter on Friday to the patronizing approach too many men from all parties adopt when speaking of women, for instance as the “backbone” and “foot soldiers” of their election campaigns and the like, but “almost never the brains.” It was a theme enlarged upon by the representatives of various organisations the following day, who went on to point out that “…girls are outperforming boys in educational attainment in many subject areas and that the gender gap in areas in which males have traditionally excelled, such as maths and science is narrowing not only in Guyana but worldwide.”
There was no allegation by anyone that merit had not been a factor in the selection of members, simply that women who qualified had been excluded.
But serious gender imbalance was not the only issue which was raised. Andaiye adverted obliquely to another matter when she described the boards as comprising “mainly men who are mainly older, mainly middle class and mainly African-Guyanese,” but it was addressed directly by Mr Clairmont Lye and Mr Gordon Forte. The former adverted to the fact that 80% of the thirty-five chairs had been filled by non-Indian Guyanese, and he was left to wonder about “the promise of inclusivity and promotion of racial unity.” Mr Forte, for his part, wrote, “We and our unaccountable decision-makers have to remember the power of filthy racialism, and the long and winding road we have taken towards its elimination,” which he then qualified by adding, “Should I say, the road I hope we have taken?”
Mr Lye ended his letter by telling the government that in politics “perception is reality,” and that “we need to keep them mindful of that.” Well obviously, they are not mindful of that, and have forgotten their undertakings to the electorate already. Is it the opiate of power which has caused this memory lapse, or are we to presume that there are tensions within the coalition which are of such an order that ensuring who gets what is the only priority and everything else is pushed to the background?
All of these boards were approved by the cabinet, but most of the ministers would not have been in a position to judge the quality of the members of all of them. So how were they chosen? Did the subject ministers concerned and/or Minister Harmon negotiate with their AFC or APNU colleagues, as the case may be, and then present the lists to cabinet which rubber-stamped them? And was the Minister for Social Cohesion specifically asked to give any opinions on the matter? If she was not, did she have anything to say in cabinet, at least, and if she didn’t, what precisely is her function in the government?
Whatever the case, the government is clearly in need of a small review body to look at such decisions with an eye to rights and sensitivities and the like, in addition to merit and reasonable opposition representation of course. In such circumstances, the public expects that party ‘balance’ might have to give way as the primary criterion. All decisions would also have to be in conformity with the law.
If the government cannot make some provision in this regard, the individuals and organizations who wrote on the subject in our edition yesterday had a proposal of their own to put forward, namely, that an independent body be set up “with adequate gender and diversity representation to assist it.”
