|
The Westminster democratic system of government, with whatever imperfections it may have, is still as good as any that can possibly be had. Difficulties and challenges will abound in any community of men as to how that community should be organized and ordered. Because men are not angels! In a community which is heterogeneous and plural as Guyana, the challenges are multiplied. But in the end the realisation will dawn upon the discerning and right-thinking that the Westminster system of government is more preferable and desirable as against all other workable options available.
Many of its critics turn a blind eye to one of its greatest hallmark - the convention of individual ministerial responsibility. Much emphasis is given to periodic free and fair elections, the rule of law and fundamental human rights. And, rightly so! But in the absence of this convention of individual ministerial responsibility, the quality of our ‘Westminster’ democracy will remain substandard.
I had cause earlier to write about this in 2005 in a piece titled the “Shame is greater that the Exoneration” when President Jagdeo’s Cabinet decided unanimously that controversial Minister Gajraj resume duties at his Ministry after an investigation was carried out into what was then known as the “Gajraj Affair”.
The convention of individual ministerial responsibility fixes blame on a Minister for all failure of policy and administration whether the Minister himself is at fault or not; and, harsh as it may sound, even if the failure resulted from departmental maladministration. A Minister must take praise for success of his department, and blame for its failures.
Moreover, a Minister is required to provide full and accurate information to Parliament; must behave himself with frankness and condour; and, must not mislead Parliament knowingly. This is in addition to not using public resources for his personal purposes.
What this important convention is directed towards is the observance by Government Ministers of the highest standards of constitutional propriety and personal conduct. Ministers are expected to be their own conscience. That is primarily why there is no policing mechanism created to oversee and penalize ministerial misconduct. But it is exactly why it is politically correct and mandatory for resignations to follow when it emerges that Ministers have been found errant of the standards this convention entails.
I recall the incident where a man found himself in the Queen’s bedroom. Sparrow made a famous calypso out of it. The U.K’s National Security Minister then in charge, duly and with a certain ring of honour and dignity, resigned because somebody had to be responsible. This was an extreme instance of individual ministerial responsibility, but it emphasizes what political culture must exist and subsist in a Westminster democratic tradition.
In England, Ministers largely live this tradition - over 65 Ministers resigned in the half century period [1945 to 1995] for cases ranging from sex scandals, financial mis-dealings, failure in office, national security scandals, and other major and minor misconduct in public office. Recently the Brown Cabinet has been shaken by a number of such resignations.
Our Ministers in Guyana love to live up the power and privileges side of a Westminster tradition. But they fail miserably to honour and to live up to the accountability and responsibility side. This deficit in the quality of our political leadership very often times is misapplied to assert a deficit in the Westminster system of government. This preposterous illogic has propelled some to call for the Westminster model’s replacement. Now if the pilot is no good, you do not start condemning the plane. What must happen is a vigorous call for a change in the pilot.
Recently in the National Assembly Minister Robert Persaud was caught red handed breaching the standards so well known that only full and accurate information must be provided, with frankness and condour, so that Parliamentarians are not misled. Somehow the matter never got the publicity it deserved. I only noticed a Sunday Kaieteur editorial chastising me for being a “cavilling M.P.” for criticising the Minister. I just hope that the writer is not losing his passion now that he has gotten his pension.
Our Agriculture Minister was under serious scrutiny by members of the Economic Services Committee of Parliament on the 11th July, 2008 concerning the status quo of Guysuco and its long term future. He painted a rather rosy picture of the sugar industry. Several weeks thereafter we were all floored when he announced a massive overhaul of the Board at Guysuco.
But that aside, there was another matter that now has enraged me totally. He was asked by me as to the availability of Guysuco’s Business Plan. I understood his answers at the time to be that the Business Plan was not available because it was not finalized.
I quote verbatim from Hansard:
“Ramjattan: Are we going to get these documents? They are so important that we get them!
Persaud: No, the documents will be provided once we complete the various ….. we are
engaged in discussions with the EU and some other stakeholders in finalizing ….
Ramjattan: How early?
Persaud: I do not want to tell.
Ramjattan: Give us a projection.
Persaud: I would say some time in the last quarter of 2008”.
Yet when the bubble burst recently concerning the loss of over $1.6 B to Guysuco as a result of the non-delivery of the Business Plan to the European Union by the March 2008 extended deadline, this same Minister in defence stated that the Business Plan was indeed completed and was in Cabinet as of March 2008 and was given to the EU as of June 2008. This, after the Minister had told us in the Economic Services Committee on 11th July 2008, when he was being questioned, that the Business Plan was not completed!
This Minister was not being truthful, frank nor candid to us in the Economic Services Committee. He was bloody lieing! His latter position was irreconcilable and contradictory to the one he shared with us in the Economic Services Committee. For this alone he should resign! The loss of that massive sum of $1.6 B under his stewardship in itself is a sufficient other ground. But he would not. He wants to stay a couple more years at what I know as Herdmanston Annexe at the State’s expense ($3,000.00 U.S. per month to NICIL) in these dire economic times, after selling his house at Eccles for millions. This is yet another ground for his resignation – using the public’s resources for his personal purposes. In any other democracy, the uncovering of these facts will have seen such a miscreant Minister calling it a day. In Guyana, under the present PPP, this kind of misconduct may very well realize for this Minister a promotion, the Presidential candidacy. Goodness me. What have we come to?
|
