This newspaper accepts – and it has said so previously – that the new administration will take some time to ‘catch its length,’ (to use a well-worn cricketing term) and that it will make errors (for which it will have to take responsibility, of course) and make decisions that will probably not meet with the approval of many, and in some instances, perhaps even most people. Our expectation, however, is that it will govern justly, keep in mind its mandate and not lose sight of the promises that it has made to the electorate during its elections campaign. That is not too much to ask.
The new administration must also diligently pursue its probes and enquiries into such serious irregularities and improprieties as might have occurred under its predecessor without –again as we have said before – having that pursuit degenerate into either a circus or a witch hunt or become the whole of its agenda. However much the righting of wrongs may be a legitimate part of the government’s agenda, it needs to understand that that cannot take the place of all of the substantive business of taking the nation forward.
There are some things that should have already changed like, for example, the ongoing absence of clarity regarding the responsibilities of some of the new and renamed ministries and their ministers. There can be no good reason why a thorough official explanatory circular on this matter has not yet been placed in the public domain so that there can be a clear understanding of where the particular responsibilities lie.
Some people have questioned too whether it is necessary to make ministers heads of state boards and there is also the point made by the GHRA and others recently about the paucity of women on the boards of state institutions, the response of Minister of State Joseph Harmon to the query notwithstanding.
We find reason, too, to return to the matter of the code of conduct for ministers in the light of what we believe has been a historical proclivity among some ministers for taking unpardonable liberties in their treatment of ordinary citizens and in their treatment of the state’s resources. In this context and while it is a no feather in the collective national cap that two former ministers of government are currently before the courts, one accused of taking liberties with another citizen and another of taking liberties with state resources, there is nothing wrong with the signal it now sends that there is some sort of equality under the law. Here we repeat our earlier urging to those who are now in authority that what goes around comes around and that the tough public line on ministerial indiscretions must be applied to those serving this government as well. That is the burden of example that the Granger administration has set itself.
Late last week talk of substantial increases in the emoluments of ministers surfaced in sections of the media. All that we will say about this matter at this stage is that it has taken far too long for an official public statement to surface on this matter. Clarity on an issue of this nature is not only an obligation on the government’s part but also a matter of good sense as far as its public image is concerned.
While on the subject of the rumoured hike in ministers’ pay it does not hurt to remind the government that its promise of an increase in public servants pay is yet to be fulfilled. Should the government indeed decide to ‘top up’ its ministers the Guyanese people will have their own views on that, and it is for the administration to deal with those views.
Some instances of ‘attitude’ may have come to the fore in ministers’ treatment of the media. Lest we find ourselves in a condition of déjà vu as far as ministerial conduct is concerned we believe that the best course of immediate action would be to bring these things out into the open so that they can be remedied. We believe that Guyana may well be closer to that juncture where our political behaviour and our governance process as a whole can change for the better and it is our view that vigilant, honest and forthright media can help that process.
There is still evidence of much public goodwill for President Granger though we have heard it said that it would be a good thing if he were to assume a higher domestic public profile. While one understands that a President has responsibility to both his domestic and external publics, we believe that effective governance requires that a balance be struck between the two.
It is worth mentioning too that the vast majority of our ministers are political novices and we can expect that both the public and the media will, over time, be evaluating the performances of their portfolios. There are some from whom we have heard little or nothing so far, and it is for the government’s public information machinery to promote their portfolios and their work and to ensure that, as far as is necessary, they are seen and heard from. Minister in the Ministry of Social Protection Simona Broomes may not be a seasoned politician though she has attracted some measure of media attention. So far, she has come across as a minister who is committed to her mission. It has not escaped this newspaper’s attention that she appears to have chosen to tackle, head on, some of the most intractable problems facing ordinary working people including workplace safety and health issues, workplace accident reports, penalties and compensation, employer delinquency in the payment of employee NIS contributions, payment of compensation to wrongfully dismissed workers and salaries and conditions for state and privately employed security guards. If we hold no particular brief for this minister we make no apologies for applauding the fact that she appears to be tackling these difficult assignments that go to the heart of the problems facing ordinary workers with a sense of seriousness. We sincerely hope that she stays the course and that she succeeds.
If it may seem that we may be guilty of picking on the administration then we readily concede our concern for what is described in the profession as our watchdog role, a role that has everything to do with seeking, as far as we can, to ensure that the political administration keeps its feet firmly on the ground and that in whatever ways it might change in the course of its tenure, it remains altogether accountable to the people it was elected to serve. That, we believe, must be its primary mission.
