Political hypocrisy

Feb 01, 2009 Features / Columnists

---

The Parrot, after following recent developments, is tempted to brand them as hypocrisy. Some may feel that it is too strong a word to use for public consumption. This we can debate. When the issues are objectively scrutinised, the conclusion of hypocrisy is easily derived.

For starters, over the years, some opposition members and a few of their associates who shield themselves under the guise of civil society have accused the government of non-transparency and for condoning corruption. This has become a “robotic” mantra used in every opportunity to be offensive to the ruling party.

These accusations are being made despite the annual presentation of the Auditor General’s report to the National Assembly by this administration. This is a ground-breaking achievement when it is taken into account that, prior to 1993, such presentations had been lacking under the last regime. The Auditor General’s report reflects government’s accountability to the nation. How then can the accusers who hold their heads in high esteem cast aspersions on government with regards to transparency and accountability?

I have no reason to believe that the reports are not accessible and that the accusers may be literally challenged. This rules out related mundane excuses. If it is that they were tardy in ensuring that personal time was available for perusal, then, not only is the fault theirs but any related accusations are baseless.
The question must be asked: how is it that people who imposed non-accountability and non-transparency on a nation for so long during the last regime accuse others?

While, in their defence, they will advocate that the past should not be returned to and that the government must be held accountable, they must be reminded that, in the first instance, their clamour for transparency is evidence of the freedom of expression that now prevails.

This freedom only materialised after the return to democracy sixteen years ago. Secondly, with the advent of democracy, the government has since steadfastly fulfilled its promise of accountability through the Auditor General’s report.

This begs another question: is the parliamentary system available to the members being efficiently and meaningfully utilised? I ask this because, if it were, then the accusations would not have been about accountability, but as to the content of the report.

This deficiency is evident of the political games and gimmickry being exhibited by the accusers at the expense of their constituents and Guyana’s development. It is clear that these machinations are not an attempt to execute the mandate of the Office of the Opposition, but an exercise in political indulgence for personal gains.

This brings me to the furore created about the Auditor General’s report pertaining to Fidelity Investments. It must be noted that some members of the opposition and their affiliates in sections of society clamoured for an investigation following the stand-off between the company and the GRA.

The Head of State did announce that an investigation would be launched and that the report be tabled in the National Assembly. Before the report was tabled, a certain Accountant, who seems to be making his future political ambitions known, kept questioning almost to the point of being demanding, the time of its presentation.

While he now enjoys such fundamental freedoms, he would be fully aware of the time-consuming task of such an investigation; the fact that the Head of State cannot only be concerned with such a report, and when it would have been presented to Parliament, that entity’s schedule may not have allowed for an immediate presentation. What became interesting, almost laughable, after the investigation was launched was the Accountant’s obsessive questioning as to the Head of State’s authority to call for such an inquiry.

Here is a person who never stops demanding over the years that government act on allegations of corruption. Here is a case in which the findings of an investigation are not questioned; what is questioned is whether the rightful authority ordered it. When the authority didn’t act, it was accused of condoning corruption; now that it has, its authority has been questioned. What is it that these people really want?

If an investigation wasn’t launched, it would have remained a talking point indefinitely by these commentators. Isn’t the presentation of the report to the National Assembly an act of transparency and accountability?

It would be remiss of me if I didn’t comment, in this context, on the position taken by some members of the opposition in relation to the declaration of income and assets to the Integrity Commission.

This declaration for all public officials is mandated by law for accountability purposes. Why is it when some were reminded and given a period to comply, it became a bone of contention as to whether the Head of State was correct in his pronouncement? Why should they be reminded in the first place? The secretariat of the Commission didn’t cease to exist, so why the furore? What is there to hide?

It is clear from these outbursts that those who oppose such lawful procedures are themselves not concerned with accountability and transparency. Politicking? Hypocrisy? My money is on the latter. Squawk! Squawk!

---

---