Political influence

Sep 08, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The People’s National Congress (PNC) held a special congress of the party on the 10th November 1973, a mere four months after dead people voted in the rigged 1973 elections. Addressing those gathered, Founder Member, Member of Parliament and Parliamentary Secretary in the Prime Minister’s office, Margaret Ackman, called for a system of exclusive membership, since she noted that persons felt that using the party card entitled them to jobs, houses or other favours.
If you had a party card in those days you could use it to get things done for you within the government. A party card unlocked doors and kept them open for you. The PNC party card was responsible for packing the public service with a lot of misfits – square pegs in round holes who could not function and who ran down public corporations because of their incompetence on the job.
It was at that very Congress also that Burnham proposed the idea of primary elections for choosing representatives of the party. So the system which was introduced to decide on the party’s presidential candidate in the 2011 elections is not a new one. Burnham’s suggestion was that all representatives be chosen by this process. But the then-PNC and the present PNCR would never go that far. Democracy is only trusted within certain limits within the PNCR.
Today, you do not need a party card. You need a military card, and if you are retired and receiving a military pension, all the better, a big job awaits you. This is not to say that the party does not wield influence. It still does. All you need is to know somebody who knows somebody within the party and you can do just like what used to be done with the party card in 1973.
One of the reasons why Ministers have become so ineffective is that they are spending half of their working day having to meet members of the public who are seeking jobs for their children. They are “pulling strings” rather than cards to get jobs for their children and grandchildren.
Red Thread is up in arms over the fact that a Regional Executive Officer (REO) who is before the courts on a sexual offence charge is still enjoying his full salary, even though he is on administrative leave. Is there a political connection to this saga? Is political influence at work here?
It is standard practice in cases like these for a public servant before the court to be interdicted from duties and placed on half pay. The REO, however, is not a tenured public servant. He is most likely a contract employee. But in most contracts offered by the government, there is a stipulation which usually states that public service rules would apply. This should mean, therefore, that the REO should have been interdicted and placed on half pay.
Administrative leave is not used in cases where someone is facing trial for a charge unrelated to his work. Administrative leave is used when there is an investigation for an alleged infraction on the job. The REO should be interdicted and placed on half pay
How then is the government going to explain this situation of the REO obtaining his full salary while awaiting trial? The Ministry of Communities has some questions to answer on this score.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News