Government’s decision to move Cabinet meetings to the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) Base Camp Ayanganna, while “urgent repairs” have started at the Ministry of the Presidency, has been condemned by the opposition and criticised by observers.
“There is a blurring of the line between the security forces and the political directorate of the executive branch of the government,” Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo told Stabroek News yesterday.
“The fact that the government chose to have them in the army compound gives credence to the view that not only is this government becoming more and more secretive but it is ominously being dominated by a military mindset,” he added.
In a Department of Public Information statement, government yesterday announced that the Officer’s Mess Hall at Camp Ayanganna would be used for Cabinet meetings in light of the repair works at the Ministry of the Presidency (MotP).
“The Ministry of the Presidency advises that urgent repair works have commenced in some sections of the main buildings of the MotP complex. These urgent works have resulted in some rooms, including [the] Cabinet Room being temporarily unavailable for use,” it said.
As a result, the statement said, a thorough and extensive search was conducted for a suitable space to temporarily host Cabinet meetings. It noted that the main requirements for a temporary alternative venue related to privacy and confidentiality, security, document preparation and reproduction, size, cost, accessibility, parking and minimal disruption to traffic and regular business.
“After consideration of a number of options it was found that the vast majority of these venues did not meet several or some of the most important requirements or were unavailable for the times required. The only venue which met the requirements was the Officers Mess at Camp Ayanganna. This venue is being temporarily used for Cabinet Meetings until repair works at the Ministry of the Presidency are complete,” the statement said.
It added that there was no cost to the state for the use of the venue. Cabinet met yesterday at the venue.
‘Militaristic in approach’
Jagdeo, however, argued that the fact that the ministry is being repaired speaks to the unnecessary use of state funds.
“There are two things that this press release confirms about the government and the first is that they are spending huge sums of money, after they have falsely claimed that we have left them a bankrupt country; spending on prestige and ‘comfort issues,’ rather than addressing problems facing our people daily that is, the demand for jobs, better services and better security,” he said.
“Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent on fixing State House and the Prime Minister’s residence. There is also the money put aside for the attempts to compulsorily acquire the land next to the Attorney General’s Chamber to be used for the expansion of the AG’s office. Now we have the refurbishment of the Office of the President while they have also rented over 35 buildings to expand offices and for residences for government officials,” he added.
The former head of state said that from his own experiences, he knows that Cabinet meetings can be held anywhere as he had held them in almost all the regions of the country.
“Cabinet meetings can be held anywhere. I have had Cabinet meeting in almost every region of this country. There is nothing special about these meetings. If I can hold a Cabinet meeting in Anna Regina and Lethem and they have less facilities, then what is the need for this?” Jagdeo questioned.
Immediate past president Donald Ramotar also blasted government’s decision. Ramotar reasoned that because of the negative public perceptions that would and can come from a decision such as keeping Cabinet meetings at a military base, he would not have advised such a move by any government.
“If I had to meet somewhere, given any circumstance, I certainly would have found some other building. Any building they choose, they can use. The president knows this, his advisors know this. I know its sends a message and gives an orientation that the government is militaristic and that was not an impression I would want to give. That is not an impression any government should want to give but I guess this president is most comfortable among persons in military uniform,” he said.
The argument that the GDF location was chosen because of the security and confidentiality of the meetings was rubbished by Ramotar, who argued that other venues could have been used without added costs also.
“Look, he could have gotten protection in any building they chose. You can always move in security there. You can use presidential guards and so forth and secure your place. If it wasn’t secure, I would make it secure, but there is no way I would have gone to the army barracks to hold Cabinet meetings, never. Their argument that it is for security and confidentiality purposes don’t hold ground, [it] cannot hold ground. Look around and let us take for example the [Arthur Chung] Conference Centre. There are many, many rooms there that can be used. There are many other offices and buildings that are at the disposal of the government… to use for their meetings without going to the army compound. Going there to Camp Ayanganna gives the orientation of a military-styled government and that this government is militaristic in its approach,” he stressed.
“We don’t have [a] war situation in Guyana that warrants or necessitates the level of security they are saying that is needed, that we would have to resort to using an army compound. This just goes to show the perception by many, that this is a military government in civilian uniform and for me this is true,” he added.
‘Dotish’
Political analyst and former politician Dr Henry Jeffrey could not contain his bemusement at the news of the move, which he said was the most “dotish” decision he has ever heard a government make.
“That is the most ridiculous and dotish thing I have ever heard. That is the worst decision a government could make. What nonsense? Why would any government do this?” a surprised Jeffrey questioned.
He said that government cannot show good reason for the move by saying that it is for security and the needed confidentiality for the meetings.
“Oh no! There must be one hundred places that the government can go. Please that is the lamest of excuses, that has to be the worst excuse,” he asserted.
“They have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs right across the road from OP. Why not use that? It might be a little cramped for a little bit but it is temporary alright. They have other buildings that they can use too. Aw come on, this government is making everyone look bad. This must be All Fools Day. This just cannot be real,” he added.
Jeffrey is a former long-serving minister in the PPP/C government and was also an advisor to late PNC President, Forbes Burnham.
David Hinds, political scientist and senior member of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), which is one of the parties in the parties in the governing coalition, also expressed reservations about the move.
He told Stabroek News: “This decision to hold cabinet meetings at the GDF headquarters, while not politically explosive, is bad optics and not tactically sound. At the end of the day, there are political consequences for such actions. The explanation that there were security concerns seems plausible on its face, but may not be worth the political cost.
“We have to believe that the government tried very hard to find an alternative meeting place for Cabinet meetings. But I would have stayed away from the GDF headquarters for two reasons. First, by going there, the government is playing into the hands of the opposition which has already raised the issue of the militarization of the government. For the PPP’s support base linkage of the military to government has long been a sensitive issue with ethno-political overtones that the government ought to do everything in its power not to feed.
“But there are also murmurs about the over-reliance on ex-military personnel among government supporters. Ours is a society in which political optics matter even among supporters and perception quickly becomes reality. We are also a society whose political culture is partly grounded in a separation of the military from the government; we don’t have a history of military coups and are not accustomed to seeing ex-military people in high political office.
“Mr. Granger rose to political prominence, not because of his military background, but primarily because there was and is a perception that he is a decent man who is not tainted by the old politics. I think that a section of the society expected that his closest advisors would be some of his military comrades but he has to be careful not to veer too much in that direction. In my estimation, we are at the borderline as far as the military linkage to government is concerned.”
