It was former Head of the Presidential Secretariat and Cabinet Secretary, Dr Roger Luncheon who transformed his post into one of considerable power. Under the PPP/C the system was far more centralised, and unlike what appears to be happening nowadays, ministers had less manoeuvrability to operate as if they were independent agents not subject to presidential if not cabinet authority. Anything of any consequence tended to be funnelled through the president’s office, and as such, landed on Dr Luncheon’s desk. No one knew more about what was going on in government than he did, although his public pronouncements did not necessarily reflect that reality.
It was he, too, who inaugurated the post-cabinet press conference, which in and of itself gave him a high profile, although his famous circumlocutions left many reporters at a loss to deconstruct what he had really said. It was, of course, his way of ensuring that they learned as little as possible. For all of that, no one ever doubted that he knew more about government, its rules and conventions than anyone else in the PPP/C administration, not to mention the details of what was actually going on. Inevitably his position of power became entrenched by virtue of the fact that he was in office for so long and served all five presidents, who were of necessity very reliant on him.
President David Granger clearly intends to follow in this tradition, rather than return to the earlier PNC mode of a low-profile, self-effacing HPS whose name many people did not even know. In order to emphasise the prominence of the post, the Office of the President has been upgraded to the Ministry of the Presidency, while its Head has been accorded the title Minister of State, albeit the lowest grade of minister.
As it is, therefore, Mr Joseph Harmon’s position is a very conspicuous one, in addition to which, as was pointed out in our editorial last Monday, his actions attract the comment that he is operating like a prime minister. Whatever Dr Luncheon’s real power, his public imprint was not usually found on government decisions, but here is Minister Harmon taking a unilateral decision in relation to the appointment of a government advisor, and allegedly interfering in the work of the Guyana Revenue Authority.
In an interview with Public Interest television programme which we reported on yesterday, President Granger responded with some annoyance to an accusation of corruption in relation to the appointment of Brian Tiwari as a government advisor by Minister Harmon. The accusation had been made by the Transparency International Guyana Institute (TIGI), and the President was reported as saying that the organisation should seek to meet with Mr Harmon on the matter before making such statements. However, as was pointed out in our report, over a period of ten days the Minister of State had refused to speak to the media on the issue, so why President Granger should believe that he would be any more forthcoming with TIGI is unclear.
In relation to the allegation that the Minister of State had interfered in the work of the GRA when its agents went to seize two vehicles from the Chinese logging concern Baishanlin, the President was reported to have said that he had had discussions with Minister of Finance Winston Jordan that in future no one other than he should deal with the GRA. He was quoted as saying, “From time to time errors occur ‒ not that I am saying an error occurred in this case. But when something happens, there is an investigation and I would ask all non-governmental organisations to ask for information before going to the street or going to the press.” Here again, Mr Harmon undertook to make a statement on Wednesday, but up to the time of writing, none had been forthcoming.
As it is, the clear implication of what the President said is that he thought that ‘errors’ were made in both instances, since in the first case he rescinded Mr Tiwari’s appointment, and in the second, he let it be known that in future all matters relating to the GRA were to be dealt with by the responsible minister, ie, the Minister of Finance.
There are various inferences to be drawn from these events, and the first is that President Granger is not enforcing cabinet responsibility as fully as is the norm in democratic governments of our type, in consequence of which his ministers – or some of them, at least – are enjoying too much latitude. A government which lacks cohesion – and since it is a coalition this one has particular centrifugal tendencies to confront – will not be able to function effectively. In our system, cabinet responsibility needs to be enforced.
The second is that Minister Harmon appears woefully unfamiliar with what the rules, and even the laws, are. He occupies a critical post and has been given a high profile, but unlike Dr Luncheon (whose shortcomings were in other departments) he is not confident about what can and cannot be done and will therefore be prone to making mistakes, possibly of a cardinal nature as in the recent cases. Some of his public statements might suggest that his perception of what constitutes ‘corruption’ does not quite accord with the standard international definition being applied by TIGI, but it is the standard definition which counts.
The third is that President Granger’s journalism background notwithstanding, the new Ministry of the Presidency is as reluctant to answer questions from the press as the old Office of the President was. A government which campaigned on openness and transparency cannot afford to be so media shy unless it wants to be accused of returning to the ways of its predecessors. In any case, media blackouts always arouse public suspicion.
The fourth relates to what Minister Harmon is reported to have told Kaieteur News about the appointment of Mr Tiwari, namely, that “several instruments” had been issued to people from both APNU and the AFC as well as for those “who have helped us in the campaign…” This country has always been a place of patronage, and the implication of what the Minister of State had to say (among other things) was that it still is. So much for the meritocracy we were all promised.
Finally, rightly or wrongly the impression is being conveyed that the Ministry of the Presidency finds civilian restrictions burdensome. The Minister of State has a long and distinguished background in the army, and he is surrounded in his ministry with a number of former army personnel. Things are very much simpler in a military environment; for obvious reasons it is not a democratic setting and long-winded discussions on the right course of action are not encouraged. The options (at least in peacetime) are clear, discipline is strict, the capacity to make fast decisions is cultivated, and everything is altogether more neat and orderly.
In contrast civilian affairs are infinitely more complicated and messy, and those in office have to be prepared to listen to, and usually take into account any number of discordant voices. While the final decision on an issue may lie with the President, in a healthy democracy it will generally not be taken without ample prior discussion; it is how mistakes are avoided. In addition, the legislation in the average democratic polity is complex, and so may be the conventions and principles which underpin it or are associated with it, even though they may not always be in written form.
One has to wonder whether the Minister of State has enough personnel at his disposal who are familiar with the relevant statutes and rules and have experience working in the civilian bureaucracy. If he does have such expertise at his disposal, does he seek and accept advice from those personnel, or does he military-style consider it is just a question of handing down straightforward orders? Is he perhaps not sensitive to the areas in which it might be appropriate for him to seek advice?
Whatever the case, all the former officers now in government service have to adjust to the fact that the modus operandi of the GDF cannot be the modus operandi of the Ministry of the Presidency.
