Dear Editor,
I agree with Friday’s SN editorial that concrete proposals will not emerge from the recent GOAR (Guyanese Organizations Against Racism) events in New York to push for specific solutions on the ventilated complaints. Protest politics is more self-gratifying but ultimately less productive than solutions politics. The latter requires persistent inter-party engagement and consensus-seeking. Given where Guyana is politically, GOAR’s efforts will therefore change nothing. The country can however readily fix one of its more contentious discrimination issues—the charges of racism and political victimization in the hiring and firing of government appointees. The fix lies, as has been suggested in these columns before, in agreeing upfront on how to define a political appointee and what persons/positions so qualify. By this agreement, all concerned (including the appointees themselves) are forewarned that the government has the right to remove them by direct executive action as it deems fit. That political appointees can be so treated is not, one assumes, in dispute—as their job security is non-existent given that they are directly handpicked by the President or his ministers to implement party policies or as a means of rewarding supporters. The only contention therefore should be which positions or appointments so qualify.
This solution to the problem would effectively eliminate the eternal political wrangling. As we speak, the Biden administration, for example, by executive directive is replacing thousands of Trump appointees from hundreds of federal agencies with only isolated opposition. The US, since 1952, has published these appointed positions in its so-called Plum Book (officially, the United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions), a new edition of which is released after each US presidential election. This fore-warning system is encoded in legislation and removes any surprises. Thus, charges of discrimination and victimization are rendered baseless. How do we get a “Plum Book” for Guyana? One clear possibility is for our opposition to table a motion in the National Assembly requesting that the government set up an independent committee to make recommendations on the definition, identification, conduct in office, and removal of political appointees. These recommendations should then be translated into legislation and a code of practices, all of which must be unanimously blessed by the parliamentary parties. The country could then know in advance, for instance, whether or not the services of the EPA Director or the GLSC commissioner could be terminated by executive fiat. Someone of the calibre of E.B. John should head such a committee. Timeframe for enactment (inclusive of time for public review and comment): 2-3 months. The other option is for the Minister responsible for governance to give substance to her portfolio by at least spearheading this initiative.
One more thing. Charges of racial discrimination also surface when government programs are scrapped or reorganized by a new party in government. The coalition, let us not forget, also faced its share of criticisms and protests in its handling of employees in the PPP’s one-laptop and the Hinterland-based Community Support Officer programs. We should therefore task the proposed committee to explore whether pre-agreed rules can also immunize these situations from Guyana’s political and ethnic wrangling.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Lowe
