Dear Editor,
Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture in the Reagan Administration (1980 – 1988) was fired – not for committing a crime but for insulting the Pope. (“He na playa the game, he na mekka the rules”). His remarks were considered an attack on the sensibilities of millions of people around the world, both Catholics and non-Catholics. Earl Butz was fired for saying something outrageous, not a crime. This episode played out in the United States in the 1980’s, showed that governments do sensibly sometimes give in to public pressure. And, that a Cabinet Minister can also be fired for transgressions other than or lesser than a rape conviction.
Here we have Minister Dharamlall telling another woman MP, “Is a dildo you want, that is what you looking for”. He tendered what is universally considered a fake apology and which was accepted by the Speaker as a good enough excuse to remain in parliament. The Speaker of the parliament even refused a Motion to debate Dharamlall’s transgression that time. The partisanship of the Speaker was so blatant it should have disqualified him from holding that post. Such blatant extreme partisanships on the part of Speakers do not augur well for free and open debates in the parliament. It takes away from the true essence of a democracy. The previous PNC gov’t’s speaker also seriously and serially violated this parliamentary standard.
The DPP is still looking to see if Dharamlall’s rape accusation fits under any of the nation’s statutory laws. Or if the Victim/Witness’ statement is valid and can be held up in court. The DPP told the press she will make a decision whether to charge or not to charge “at the appropriate time” (in this small fledgling democracy, under a million people, this DPP’s office has been known to take months and months stretching into years to make such a simple decision: analyzing the facts, credibility of witness statements – and finding a charge under the statutes). Suppose Dharamlall beats the rap in Court for any reason, – “technicality” maybe – what next?
President Ali appears to be so soft – a tendency to show subservience to the offending Minister/Ambassador on these matters (Minister Dharamlall has been relieved of his duties – still drawing a full salary, over USD 10,000 a month and enjoying all the perks of a Minister). President Ali’s conduct in both of these matters – High Commissioner Charrandass and now Minister Dharamlall – he comes off as very un-presidential. The Earl Butz standard shows a minister could be fired for saying or doing something outrageous. In Guyana nothing is outrageous enough for Minister Dharamlall to be fired.
No, not the dildo remark in the parliament (“Is a dildo you want, that is what you looking for”). In Guyana, only a conviction of rape (maybe) will suffice. President Ali’s standard. This could become his legacy to governance. An afterthought: Is this a case of groupthink, party control – or what? When would President Ali be bold enough to step out from under someone else’s shadows and take control – to show he is his own man?
Sincerely,
Mike Persaud
