ETHICS IN ADMINISTRATION

In 1961 the PPP was elected as the government for the second time, 1957 being the first. My father, Ram Karran, was appointed a Minister of the Government in both 1957 and 1961. On this latter occasion I distinctly recall that in December, 1961, a large number of Christmas gifts were delivered to our home. I vaguely remember the decision that the gifts were not opened. They were stored in our verandah. Some time later, but before Christmas, the gifts were returned unopened. Again vaguely, I recall discussion to the effect that government ministers were not allowed to receive gifts.

The PPP built a legacy of ethical administration during its two governments from 1957 to 1964. Of course, there were accusations of corruption, but these were few and far between, were never proved and never gained traction. The PPP’s history of clean government together with the modest lifestyle of PPP leaders between 1964 and 1992, as opposed to that of opposing politicians, entrenched modesty and incorruptibility in administration as part of its character. This enabled the PPP in the election campaign for the 1992 elections to credibly propose as part of its manifesto that it will establish a “lean and clean” administration. This slogan resonated because the electorate believed it and were fed-up with the corruption of the past.

The PPP’s campaign for a lean and clean government in 1990-1992 attracted great sympathy even though voting patterns remained ethnically entrenched. Increasing poverty during the period of  the 1970s and 1980s led to declining standards of ethics and increasing corruption as public servants and business people scrambled to survive. The leadership of the new PPP/Civic administration resisted calls for legal methods to curb existing corruption and establish ethics in administration. Government leaders, particularly Cheddi Jagan, relied on their own integrity as an example that would be followed.

But this did not happen. While Cheddi Jagan was alive, corruption seeped into the government for which he was forced to take action. But apart from the Auditor General completing the missing reports and constituting the Integrity Commission to which officials are required to submit asset statements annually, nothing further was done. Calls from within the PPP for additional steps to be taken to tackle corruption were met with such vicious hostility that all such discussion has been silenced.

Today, public servants can openly accumulate close to a billion dollars in cash and assets under the noses of their employers without any sanction whatsoever. It would be challenging the boundaries of credulity to accept that no one knew of the accumulation while it was going on. And if people knew, or permitted it, then no argument can be credibly advanced that this kind of activity is not tolerated. Private business activities by certain public servants or certain categories of public servants, and unlawful accumulation by a large swath of the new ruling strata is now rampant. Government officials are not necessarily complicit in this state of affairs but there is no explanation for the failure to enforce existing rules such as public servants not engaging in business activities period, or to devise and impose standards of ethical behaviour generally and especially about receiving gifts with enforcement mechanisms. Why do the commissioners of the Integrity Commission maintained in a toothless position without the ability to investigate submissions and call in the Police? The Procurement Commission recently reported in relation to a matter that even though it found that systems were violated it had no power to do anything. Is there any intention to alter this situation by giving the Procurement Commission additional powers or is it, like the Integrity Commission, to also remain a “toothless poodle?”

The argument about corruption in 2012 in which I was involved was that increased government spending on infrastructure from $2 billion to $20 billion had opened the way for increased corruption and that additional steps need to be taken to curb what many felt were increasing instances of corruption. At this time the Procurement Commission had already been entrenched in the Constitution since 2001. The PPP/C government adamantly refused to appoint the Commission on flimsy excuses that its appointment would deprive the government of ‘no objection.’ It was the APNU+AFC government that appointed the Commission.

Apart from the appointment of the Procurement Commission in about 2016, the position that prevailed in 2012 remains the same today save that government expenditure has multiplied – the total budget in 2023 is $1.14 trillion! Since the potential for corruption has increased exponentially, the minimum that ought to be expected is basic reforms arising from recent events. These are enforcement of the rule that public servants across the board must follow the rules and not engage in private business and a rule against the acceptance of gifts by public servants including parliamentarians that is public and has an enforcement mechanism that is subject to public scrutiny.

Regrettably, history has shown that no PPP/C government will willingly embark on even these minimal and basic reforms to deal with corruption based on public statements within Guyana. It is a sad reality that the only way even these reforms can be expected is if pressure of a condign, as opposed to an exhortatory, nature, is imposed from external agencies.