It’s the President’s Prerogative to intervene

Oct 31, 2018 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
It is the President’s prerogative to intervene in any matter that affects the national interest. The governance pattern of President David Granger with regards to his cabinet and its individual officers is that they be allowed to perform their daily functions, without his interference. In other words, he is not micro managing their portfolios.
Of course, the buck stops with every head of state/government who is ultimately responsible for his/her cabinet ministers’ functions.
This is a departure from the well-known micro managing style of former president Bharrat Jagdeo, which became a hallmark of his style of governance. After all, he loved the limelight, as he still does.
One will recall that although he had a Minister of Foreign Affairs, he undertook numerous overseas journeys to international fora – which by right should have been the function of his then cabinet officer, but that was Jagdeo.
Let us take a closer look at the contentious matter that was – of the recent Guyana Teachers’ Union (GTU) demand for increase wages and other benefits, which has now been settled. Again, the President allowed his ministers to function, for that is their allotted portfolio, with their respective concomitant responsibilities.
This should not mean that as Chief Executive, he has to perform their every function, even in a heightened situation such as a threatened strike action. But he has the power and authority to intervene, as he twice did with regards to the GTU impasse – resulting on both occasions with his final involvement bringing the matter to an amicable end.
That he would have done so was not because of having to be “bullied”, according to Bharrat Jagdeo, while campaigning for Local Government Elections recently. It was a case of the President deciding that it was time for his intercession.
One “Paul Bumbery” in the Kaieteur News of October 13, 2018, (if he exists, given the unusual spelling of his surname) is of the view that the President ought not to have intervened, and that the GTU should not have allowed such an intervention, because as he claims, it has reduced what would have been the correct and accurate increases that its members deserved, especially if it had been sent to arbitration.
This line of argument is fallacious as it is malicious, since it is the president’s prerogative to intervene, if and when it becomes necessary. So, this is not a case where “Granger continues to undermine his credibility … to take over the authority of our democratic institutions” as Bumbery so erroneously claims.
And so to ask, “Why is the man (President) voiding established governance systems for effective government operations?” without saying how this has been done by the President’s action, is to portray both an ignorance of the powers and functions of the Executive, and how it operates in matters of state. As we all know, bullying has and still is Jagdeo’s style.
What this disguised political writer should understand is that no Head of State/government is going to allow any key sector, such as the nation’s educators, to persevere in industrial action, comprehending full well, the negative impact that would ensue.
If, as “Bumbery” has further suggested, the President’s “actions” and “decisions’’ in relation to the union’s efforts to extract improved salary and working, “have stripped the Ministry of its authority, and have been grossly counterproductive”, then he is implying here that the president should abdicate his responsibilities in the face of a serious threat to the industrial peace.
As a matter of fact, there is no written or unwritten law which says that intervention by the nation’s Chief Executive either by himself, or in conjunction with the specific ministry, is a denuding of that cabinet office’s authority.
Such a view, to say the least, is asinine, for anyone to hold such an opinion. For if the Executive can appoint anyone to a cabinet office, and can remove such an officer, once it is determined, then any intervention is automatic. That is to put the entire issue of “Bumbery’s” misleading contention in its proper context.
Editor, I cannot fathom “Bumbery’s” rather strange conclusion that President Granger’s intervention is a pattern that is continuous, and that such constitutes a usurpation of the nation’s democratic institutions.
There is no record, from 2015, to date, of this practice, and even in this GTU teachers’ impasse, it cannot amount to interference in the workings of the institutions of state. It is purely an exercise of his responsibility as President of Guyana.
I am in no doubt that President Granger, given his commitment to educating the nation, would have wanted to fulfill his promises to teachers of their being the best paid workforce category in Guyana.
It stands to reason why the first set of proposals was sent to the Minister of Finance, with a view of ascertaining not only the feasibility of such an increase, but also its sustainability.
Regards
Dillon Goring

---

---