Taking small steps towards a larger goal

Oct 27, 2008 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

I do not pay much heed to the Transparency International index. There is a greater need for public transparency in the manner in which such surveys are done, by whom they are done, and why they are done, before I can lend any credibility to their results.
I therefore do not pay any attention to the rankings developed by Transparency International.  As far as I am concerned, those rankings serve only the international financial community, which wishes to influence open market reforms in developing economies.
Guyana has undergone the first round of reforms, which relates to structural reforms of the economy. In the process, we have so liberalized our economy with the support of the donor community that it is now free for funds obtained through corrupt means to move freely out of Guyana. We have also opened our markets to foreign goods and services and removed subsidies. Increasingly, therefore, we have made Guyana into an open economy.
Those interested in the foreign penetration of our markets have their eyes on a second round of reforms. These relate to institutional reform, and they are willing to pour the funds to promote these reforms. Justification for these reforms will be found by pointing to indices such as those developed by Transparency International, which point to a high incidence of perceived corruption.
I have no doubt that there is a high incidence of corruption in Guyana. But that it is the international community’s business to force change onto Guyana because of some survey developed does not inspire in me any confidence.
I agree with columnists such as Chris Ram, however, that the silent majority needs to speak out about corruption in Guyana. But I do recall that when this column took the lead in so doing, when it knocked on the doors of the public conscience, no one listened.  For me, that experience was a grave disappointment, because it showed that the Guyanese people, including civil society, can be extremely selective when it comes to demanding greater transparency.
We are also extremely adept at blaming the Government and asking that the Government take action against graft and mismanagement. However, it is the public which has to lead the way when it comes to setting the standards that are necessary to ensure that corruption is reduced.
The public therefore has to be less selective. There is a great lack of transparency also in the private sector, but we do not hear too many calls for improvements as we do when the Government is involved.
Similarly, the public can be extremely selective at times in invoking the silent treatment. I recall, for example, when there was a report of missing funds from the office of a political party. There was no big concern here. And when a tape recording appeared in which one person was overheard threatening to plant drugs on another person, there was no great public outcry about that matter. This is why it is so difficult to hold Government responsible. There is too much inconsistency.
I believe that we must all be prepared to work together with the Government to improve transparency. It is easy to call for heads to roll in relation to poor performance. It is much more difficult, in a country such as ours, to work to ensure the requisite systems and standards are put in place to ensure that corruption is reduced. It is even more difficult to speak out against wrong doing, because of the fear of the consequences.
I believe in small steps. I believe that in dealing with corruption we do not need to go one step forward and two steps backwards. We need to build on things and to ensure that what is done is permanent. Where would I start?
I support the call of Chris Ram for the Office of the Ombudsman to be reinstated. I believe that this office is necessary if public officials are going to be held responsible for their actions. But I do also believe that there needs to be amendments to the law to ensure compliance with the decisions of the Ombudsman.
I am not as keen on the Integrity Commission, given the experience in Trinidad. What I do support, however, is for the Office of the Auditor General to be strengthened by simply increasing the funds available for it to carry out its mandate. I also feel that there is no need for that office to wait on the Government to order special inquiries. The Office of the Auditor General already has the powers to do so, and the public should be encouraged to write to the Auditor General, pointing out evidence of wrongdoing and urging an investigation.
The third area is of course in relation to contracts. I had urged the Government, when it was announcing contracts awarded, to at the same time announce the names of those winning the contracts. I am disappointed that the media, which attend the press conferences at which these contracts are announced, do not press for the names to be made public. I urge the media houses in Guyana to demand that the names of the contractors be made public.
Finally, I would like to see more judges appointed. The judiciary remains the ultimate safeguard against abuse of power in this country, and is the strongest defender of the rights of citizens. If, however, the judiciary is marked by sloth, then this will affect the delivery of justice.
What is needed right now is no elaborate justice improvement program. What is needed is for Guyana to recruit some retired judges from the Caribbean and from England to come here and help ease the backlog of cases. This suggestion has been in the works for some time and only requires political will to be implemented.
Money is no problem. If we can find $500M for CARIFESTA, we can find the money to pay for these judges, who will improve the functioning of our courts and, by extension, the system of justice.

---

---