Ministers serve at the pleasure of their Presidents

Aug 06, 2012 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I am writing with reference to the ongoing discussions/debate in the letters column of Kaieteur News on the subject of Minister Clement Rohee’s responsibility (or lack of responsibility) for the incident at Linden in which police used live bullets for crowd control purposes, instead of rubber bullets, tear gas or water cannon. Three protesters were killed. Who takes responsibility?
I cite an abstract from Google search on the definition of Ministerial responsibility:
Quote. “Ministerial responsibility or individual ministerial responsibility is a constitutional convention in governments using the Westminster System that a cabinet minister bears the ultimate responsibility for the actions of their ministry or department. Individual ministerial responsibility is not the same as cabinet collective responsibility, which states members of the cabinet must approve publicly of its collective decisions or resign. This means that a motion for a vote of “no confidence” is not in order should the actions of an organ of Government fail in the proper discharge of their responsibilities. Where there is ministerial responsibility, the accountable Minister is expected to take the blame and ultimately resign, but the majority or coalition within Parliament of which the Minister is part, is not held to be answerable for that Minister’s failure. This means that if waste, corruption, or any other misbehavior is found to have occurred within a Ministry, the Minister is responsible even if the Minister had no knowledge of the actions. A Minister is ultimately responsible for all actions by a ministry because even without knowledge of an infraction by subordinates, the Minister approved the hiring and continued employment of those civil servants. If misdeeds are found to have occurred in a ministry, the Minister is expected to resign. It is also possible for a Minister to face criminal charges for malfeasance under their watch”. Wikipedia. [End of quote].
As far as we know, the protesters were engaged in peaceful protest up to the time when they were shot. They did block a bridge and disregarded police warnings (according to news reports), but this is no justification for the police to use live bullets instead of non-lethal options to disperse protesters.
A number of letter writers, Ralph Seeram (KN columnist), Prof. Randy Persaud (American University, Washington D.C.), Attorney-at-law Odai N. S. Ramischand, Vishnu Bisram (writer and journalist) have taken the view that no action should be taken by President Ramotar, except to let the Commission of Inquiry run its course to determine – what?
I don’t quite get this part: to determine whether Minister Rohee gave the order to the Police Commander to shoot with live bullets. This is the most asinine and ridiculous part of the whole episode. Whether Rohee gave the order (I personally don’t believe he gave the order) or not, is irrelevant. Doesn’t the doctrine of Individual Ministerial Responsibility have any meaning at all to this distinguished group of learned men, Seeram, Randy, Ramischand, Bisram? Isn’t there also something to be said about practical and wise decision-making in the business of governing a racially-divided country? There is something called “smart politics”, as well as something called “dumb politics”.
Guyana is an extremely racially-divided country: Ethnic parties, extremely high levels of ethnic voting. Three African protesters shot and killed. Live bullets should not have been used, period. Racial tensions are rising. The economy is being strangled (food and fuel cannot reach the interior districts, because of sabotage by angry Africans. So how does President Ramotar defuse this situation quickly, and (to borrow Seeram’s phrase) “prevent this thing from getting out of hand”, and threaten a “return to the sixties”? You set up a smokescreen (so advised by this learned group) and wait – and let the tensions simmer.
In my earlier letter (KN July 30th) I said Rohee is not qualified to be in charge of the law-enforcement portfolio. He lacks a formal education (never completed high school, no college), and therefore, even if surrounded with able advisors, he will have a hard time discerning sound advice from bad advice. Readers should also take note of Eusi Kwayana’s letter in KN (Aug 5th) citing an extract from Dr. Ramharack’s book (“Against the Grain – B.S. Rai”) in which Home Affairs Minister Balram Singh Rai (1962) countermanded the decision of a Police Commander to shoot protesters with live bullets, and ask themselves whether Rohee would have had the fortitude to act likewise?
Rohee is a serial failure, woefully unqualified for this job. Rohee has nurtured in the police an “anything goes culture”. He is so detached, the police can do almost anything and get away with it. No one is watching the store. Too many murders go unsolved. He spends almost no time to revamp police training so his men would perform effectively and professionally. (Police used menthylated spirits to burn the genitals of a young suspect). He should have been relieved of his duties for the second time over the burned-genitals incident.
Why is Rohee still serving in the Cabinet? Doesn’t this country have more qualified people? Now this question should focus everyone’s attention. It is the system or culture of the ruling party. When the PPP came back to power in 1992, they began a “jobs-for-the-boys” program. Every loyal party supporter or organizer was given a job. Some of the most unschooled chaps were given Ministerial portfolios. It moved Moses Bhagwan to write: “Cheddi Jagan has elevated mediocrity in government to the highest levels imaginable”. Guyana has paid a heavy price for this “spoils program” gone amok. Rohee is a beneficiary of this program. How and why has Rohee survived all these years? Two things: The ruling Indo-ethnic party has almost never fired a Minister – to do this is perceived as weakness. Second, Rohee is an asset, a “window-dresser”. He is one of the few loyal Africans in the ruling Indo-ethnic party – he is sorely needed to help project the image that the party is multi-racial. So he cannot be fired, no matter what calamities befall his ministry.
Let us consider just two examples of Cabinet Ministers who were fired. (1) Agriculture Secretary, Earl Butts. He mocked the Pope. “He na playa the game, he na meka the rules”. Reagan did not initially care a heck about this remark. But when the whole country began to express their outrage with newspapers daily editorializing on the insensitivity of Earl Butts, President Reagan woke up one morning and said he had had enough. He called Butts and said: “Earl, you are liability to my Administration. Let me have your resignation by 3:00 pm”. The point here is that in a democracy a president has to pay attention to what the people are feeling and thinking – respond to their feelings of outrage. It doesn’t have to be anything terribly egregious or criminal. That’s the essence of democracy.
(2) Recently, in Peru, five protesters were shot and killed by police in a mine dispute. The President removed the Prime Minister and replaced five Ministers in his government. Could President Humala of Peru play hardball, as President Ramotar is currently doing? It made practical sense to punish the Ministers responsible for the killings of five protesters – but most importantly Humala wants to ease the tensions enveloping the nation and to show he is reformist-minded and sensitive to the protestors’ aggrieved feelings. It makes a lot of practical sense for Ramotar to act likewise.
Mr. Editor, please indulge me one last point. Attorney Ramischand came up with a novel argument, namely, Cabinet Ministers are entitled to rights enshrined in Collective Bargaining Statues and Agreements – and cannot be fired without due process etc. This is a patently false argument – and the examples I cited above showed clearly that Ministers serve at the pleasure of their Presidents and can be relieved of their duties for egregious things happening under their portfolio, as well as making innocent remarks. No due process or Commissions of Inquiry needed.
The ball is now in the court of President Ramotar. He is perceived as heading up an Indian-led government, largely supported by Indians only; Africans on the other hand see themselves as cut off from executive-making decisions (justly or unjustly). Three protesters have been shot and killed by police. Tensions are rising. (Read racial tensions). Does it not make good practical sense to defuse the tensions by firing a palpably unqualified Minister?
Mike Persaud

---

---