The expression ‘A Bridge Too Far’ is often used to illustrate a circumstance/decision/situation that strains credulity, goes beyond the point of reason or is widely considered to be doomed to public ridicule or failure.
It would hardly be excessive to say that Mr Charrandass Persaud, as the country’s High Commissioner to India was, from all reports, one of those seamy episodes in the history of the country’s Foreign Service which we would prefer not to have happened. Governments, given their prerogative, can make decisions in their own deliberate, though not necessarily always sound judgement, or are usually inclined to do as they please. Here, two points should be made. First, Mr Persaud, prior to his posting to Delhi, had no track record whatsoever in the field of diplomacy. Secondly, New Delhi, insofar as Guyana’s diplomatic pecking order is concerned, is regarded as a high profile posting. Those were the circumstances under which Charrandass Persaud was posted to India’s capital and, as became a matter of public knowledge thereafter, his ignominious withdrawal with egg on his face and discredit to this country.
Given the years of diplomatic ‘brick and mortar’ that fashioned the relationship between Guyana and India as well as New Delhi’s own high ranking among contemporary nation states it was a huge diplomatic blunder to assign someone as inexperienced in the discipline of diplomacy as Charrandass Persaud to serve as Head of Mission in Delhi. The whole thing backfired spectacularly, the result not of some conventional diplomatic faux pas but a ‘cuss out’ of an Indian national. While it was clear that a vigorous, albeit somewhat clumsy effort to ‘play down’ the incident was made, once it had occurred, there could have been no question of having Mr. Persaud remain in New Delhi as High Commissioner.
Contextually, what comes to mind here is how official decisions, political ones mostly, in which utilizing the power that reposes in the custody of the state machinery, governments can make decisions that are not only widely considered unwise, even incredulous, but may, in some instances, be perceived as running completely contrary to logic and not infrequently, seemingly decidedly contrary to the national interest. Here it has to be said that once the Charrandass Persaud incident had come to public attention, functionaries informed in matters relating to Foreign Affairs were left wondering aloud as to the rationale behind him being posted to India as High Commissioner, in the first place.
While the name Charrandass Persaud was not known to be linked to the construction sector (he is an Attorney-at-Law by profession), we learnt recently that he had been the beneficiary of a road construction contract, albeit for, compared with those that continue to be assigned with monotonous regularity, a ‘piffling’ sum. One of those perceived ‘A Bridge Too Far’ occurrences that are now prevalent in Guyana is the award by the state of contracts of one kind or another to ‘contractors’ whose skills and capabilities, in some instances, are not known to be consistent with the requirements of their assignment. These contracts are essentially ‘paybacks’ for political or other types of services rendered, though, in the final analysis, it is from the resources of the public purse that those ‘paybacks’ are made.
Mr. Persaud’s contract award, however, can be said to be linked to that now historic chain of events which, in December 2018, precipitated the truncation of the Granger administration.
On the particular point of a one-time APNU+AFC Member of Parliament ending up with what, contextually, is a decidedly modest road construction contract awarded by the incumbent political administration, the question of Mr. Persaud’s bona fides for being awarded a road-building contract is hardly one that warrants being addressed from the standpoint of eligibility since the whole issue of eligibility (in terms of considerations like experience and track record) for such assignments is now a prominent part of the wider national socio-political discourse regarding the manner in which contract awards are given by the state. Contextually, it has to be said that the incumbent political administration can hardly be credited with a great deal of ‘smarts’ for having awarded a contract for the creation of a state-run school to a team of ‘contractors’ with no track record in the discipline under their belts.
What both the now uproariously controversial Bamia Primary School project and the road construction assignment awarded to Mr. Persaud suggest is that considerations that have to do with what one might call ‘money’s worth’ are not, at least in these instances, uppermost in the minds of the political administration. Much more relevant is the issue of rewarding loyalty even if this approach ends up placing an enormous burden on the public purse. The $346 million Amelia’s Ward/Bamia primary school contract, is, incidentally, believed to be one of the better-known examples of the misallocation of state funds to have occurred in the recent history of state contract awards. The lesser, more recent, Charrandass Persaud road contract is widely seen as part of an official reward-for-services gesture. When that is taken account of, Mr. Persaud’s experience/reputation in the particular field becomes, in political terms, a moot point.
