Contextualizing the Ministerial salary increases

Oct 23, 2015 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The criticisms rage on against the 50% pay increase for APNU-AFC Ministers.  But is the increase judged on its merits, or against APNU-AFC political declarations and promises and alleged PPP’s excesses, as perceived by a sensitive and alert electorate?  PPP’s alleged excesses are one factor against which the increases were condemned. Sniffing an electioneering opportunity the PPP said that it will not accept salary increases for its Parliamentarians. This looks like a cheap political stunt. Recall it started out by describing its share of the increase as “chicken feed”. There are many dimensions to this case, including context and the way it was handled and the amount involved. The negative political impact from criticisms is obvious for the first two. However, the elements of affordability and failure to deliver a 20% increase to deserving civil servants seem less persuasive. First, “context is everything” (Freddie Kissoon’s insightful contribution to understanding the mood of the electorate in this matter is welcomed).  Machiavelli thought that ‘appearance is everything’.
Joseph Harmon’s explosion was a significant transgression (unapologetic looks arrogant: public perception), which added unnecessary pressure to the APNU-AFC cause.  One is almost certain that he regrets that moment, and probably wishes he could take it back. The trouble is he still could, and the time to do so is now. Part of the public relations failure was the trooping-out of APNU-AFC spokespersons one after another, offering different explanations. It looked like they were finding excuses in light of withering criticisms, and their approach turned into a spectacular public relations fiasco. In cases like these, most of the time, the damage comes from subsequent ridicule, rather than from the gravity of the initial act itself.
Second, the criticism that Mr. Harmon “misunderstood his role” (justification required not apology, Lincoln Lewis) is politically consequential. Reasonable justification is a critical factor in the public space. Did Mr. Harmon assume that the electorate would excuse the act( 50% increase) by judging it  far less  harshly  when set against  the string of alleged excesses and illegalities by the PPP and because, the beneficiaries will earn the money openly and lawfully,  and not through any shady act, such as embezzlement?. These are costly misunderstandings of public perception. Indeed, the condemnations seemed to have been provoked in light of alleged PPP excesses, which the APNU-AFC provided political leadership to condemn, and the electorate supported them. The increases therefore appear to be hypocritical to the electorate. Even if the issue is different, the mood seems to be that we will not tolerate more of the same. Timing is also an issue, not because there is anything intrinsic about timing, but because of how it is perceived (they just got in and they are already helping themselves. Look out, worse is to come). Third is the amount. What seemed to have drawn the most anger from critics is the perception that the increase is extravagant, especially when judged against the low salaries of public servants. The large numbers in Guyana dollars actually betray its real value however.
A basic salary of about US 250,000 over a five year term in office for a Senior Minister is not extravagant. If one were to consider a politician as a person who must do a professional job in the field of national policy making and implementation, with major consequences for the future of the country, then the question is whether the amount is unreasonable. In most cases salary is a function of responsibility and competencies required. Why should Ministers of government be different? When viewed from the perspective of what a Minister is accountable for the increase is not unreasonable, given the starting point. If the starting point was (US 360,000) a year (the salary of the former CEO Bharrat Dindyal of GPL) and 50% was added then there may be a real problem.
Another source of anger is a perception of affordability.  The country may be able to afford to pay the Ministers more now, but can it afford the whole increase to both the Ministers and the rest of the Civil service in one fell swoop? Unlikely! But is this a sufficient reason not to grant the increase to the Ministers? If it is not possible to grant a promised 20% increase to civil servants at once, this cannot be because of the 50% increase granted to Ministers. Indeed, the 50% increase amounts to a rather small proportion of what will be needed to pay a 20% increase to all public servants.
Finally, the idea that the amount of salary makes no difference to corrupt tendencies may be true for the kleptomaniac, but not necessarily for most normal people. The assumption would have to be that everyone is corrupt, a very offensive assumption. Like most offenses, corruption is not natural human behavior, it is learned and deviant and a function of opportunity and circumstances. Unless corrupt practices are tolerated/accepted/encouraged throughout a polity the amount paid, given standards of living, could make a difference since deviants are the ones likely to act corruptly, irrespective of amount paid.
Ivor Carryl

---

---