The government boots

Jul 30, 2016 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

No one is saying that persons in the military should not be employed within the public service. The main concerns are the favoring of persons in the military for jobs, the large number of persons from the military who are now employed within the government and the implications all of this may have for the politicization of the military.
It is no secret that the PNCR has been overrun by veterans. Military veterans have established a strong foothold within the PNCR and there is no way they are going to cede the political ground that they have captured. The next leader of the PNCR is likely to be an ex-military man.
Apart from the militarization of the PNCR, there is the issue that persons within the military are now favored for jobs and for other temporary appointments such as heads of commissions of inquiries.
A recent inquiry into allegations made was that the Customs Anti-Narcotics Unit was headed by an ex-officer of the Guyana Defence Force. I have no doubt that he may be qualified for the position, but no attempt was made to justify his appointment to the public by revealing the relevant skills that he would have brought to the inquiry.
No attempt was also made to examine whether the officer was in a conflict of interest. He has served under a former Chief of Staff whose son heads the very agency that he was investigating. This is not indictment against the officer’s ability to be impartial. It, however, does raise the issue of conflict of interests.
The conflict does not have to be current. It can be latent. The litmus test of a conflict of interest was established in the Pinochet case. That test is the likelihood of bias. There need not be bias for a conflict of interest to exist, just a likelihood of this happening. In the Pinochet case, a judge was deemed to be in a conflict of interest because he belonged to a local group of Amnesty International. Amnesty International had opposed the crimes committed by the Pinochet government in Chile. This is now exacting conflict of interests test can be.
Another ex-officer of the GDF has been appointed to head another Commission of Inquiry. What would it have taken the government to explain why they made this appointment? What special skills did the appointee bring that would help in the investigation? These are simple things which the government could have done to bring greater confidence in these appointments.
The appointments which have attracted the charge of militarization of the state are not these ones. It concerns the appointment of veterans to public offices. This is where the allegations of favoritism is being leveled.
Two important considerations are worth noting. First, are there no persons below the retirement age in Guyana who can fill these positions which are being filled with ex- military men? Secondly, why is there no advertisement of these positions? Why are military persons being handpicked?
If they are as skilled and adaptable as the government wants us to believe, why not open the process to competition? Why not appoint independent referees to decide who is best for the job?
The worry about militarization is because of the fear of the scale and arbitrariness of these appointments. It may reach a stage whereby persons may be excluded from appointments because some veteran is looking for a job.
The final issue is the reverse of militarization of politics. It is the politicization of the military. If military men are going to see greater prospects in their involvement in political life after they retired; if the prospects of public appointments loom, then this will feed right back into the military which will become highly politicized. This is a danger which the good fellows in Young Street may not have contemplated.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News