Explaining how a gridlock was caused in the selection of GECOM’s Chair

Jul 23, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

As a follow-up to my earlier letter on the charade surrounding the appointment of a GECOM Chairman, I would like to add the following observations.
The main cause of the gridlock in the appointment of a GECOM Commissioner may well lie in the use of the phrase ‘not unacceptable’ to the President. That phrase, ‘not unacceptable’, is an example of what linguists would call a double negative and is a phrase that ‘lacks a referential index’. In other words, the phrase ‘not unacceptable’ does not refer to anything specific and concrete in nature and therefore cannot be indexed.
In simple terms, the phrase ‘lacks a referential index’ means that you cannot point your finger to a concrete example of it in the real world. The phrase, ‘not unacceptable’ is more an example of a convenient and perhaps useful legal construct that is vague and amorphous and so subject to misinterpretations like the other phrase ‘judge-like qualities,’ both archaic constructs of the dismal past.
And here is where the President and his team of negotiators, enjoying the First Mover’s Advantage, granted by the constitutional provision that it is the President who determines what is acceptable to him, could have used the ‘Gallipoli Ploy’ at the start of the ‘hammering out’ phase by opening the discussions on a New Front: gaining agreement on the qualifications for the post of Chairman instead of assuming that it is a ‘given’ that everybody understands.
The Granger Administration suffered a bit of self-sabotage. They could have opened the discussions by clearly stating upfront what is acceptable to the President and what is not. And it is at this point of the negotiation that the President and his team had the greatest ‘leverage’: they get to make the First Cut by setting the evaluation criteria. Since they failed to exert their leverage here at this stage of the negotiations, they showed the nation how inadequately prepared they were for the negotiations.
The Granger Negotiation Team also failed in the early stages of the negotiations by failing to use a standard but powerful negotiation tactic: The Limited-Menu Option. Moreover, it is here where the Granger Team could have limited the ‘range of options’ of the Opposition Leader. They could have among other things, for example, specified that persons with known political connections and or affiliations and vested interests in any political party would not be considered.
And, the Leader of the Opposition, in his turn, could also make use of the Limited-Menu Option: by limiting the selection of the number of names to six, as provided by the constitution. The opposition leader was right however to reject the list of nominees submitted by the President since the constitution specifies that that is the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition. Discarding those decoys that distract from the prime factors was the ‘fit and proper’ thing to do.
By now, the Granger Administration would have learned that presenting the Leader of the Opposition with a fait accompli – the unilateral appointment of a GECOM Chairman – does not work, nor does the submission of a wish-list of 11 persons chosen by him. The Granger Administration can’t ‘Cut and Choose’. It is either one or the other.
Expert negotiators tell us that there are 3 Keys to Successful Negotiations: Preparation. Preparation. Preparation.
The Granger Team obviously failed to prepare. As was in the case of the long since telegraphed threat of a no-confidence motion, they yet again failed to prepare and to respond adequately.
Expert negotiators will also tell us that not only must negotiators listen keenly to what is being said, but must also listen for what is not being said. As far as I am aware, not much has been said about the qualifications for the post apart from the archaic expression that the candidate must have ‘judge-like qualities’.
And it is here where the Opposition has failed: they failed to request that the Granger Team provide specific details on the qualifications for the post of the Chairman of GECOM.
And therein lies the Achilles Heel of the Granger Administration: like their predecessors, they falsely believe that because they have the authority and power they believe they have the knowledge, skills and competence to achieve their objectives.
It is the lack of information, the lack of ‘specificity’ that engenders confusion, which leads to gridlock. Any well-trained negotiator will tell you that ‘Information’ is a very critical component of any negotiation. In this particular case, there is an ‘asymmetry of information’; only one side knows what it wants. Without the necessary information about the requirements for a candidate acceptable to the president, as in the present case, it leads to a cascade of dysfunctional consequences.
Now let’s turn our attention to the phrase ‘judge-like qualities.’ This is an example of what linguists call a semantic obfuscation.
The phrase gives the impression of saying something when in fact it says nothing and is hardly practically useful. What, in plain, common everyday language, it really means is having the ‘knowledge, experience, abilities, aptitudes and skill-set similar to that possessed by a judge’.
We Guyanese can unpack that phrase by asking ourselves the following question: What knowledge, experience, abilities and skills does a judge have? Knowledge of the Constitution, the Law, society, constitutional bodies, etc. Ability to weigh evidence and evaluate Legal Arguments and take decisions, Skills to analyse situations and communicate decisions, etc.
And here is where it may be useful to point out that the occupation of being a judge is not the only occupation that requires that set of knowledge, abilities and skills. CEO’s of local, regional and international companies, organisations and institutions, all possess that type of knowledge, abilities, aptitudes and skills set, etc. So, the selection of a suitable candidate is not limited to a set of judges but anyone with a similar knowledge and skills-set.
What the phrase ‘not unacceptable’ to the President really means in plain and simple common language is ‘does not meet or satisfy the requirements of the President.’
So, now that I have ‘unpacked’ the ‘legal jargon’ Guyanese can better understand what ‘not unacceptable’ really means. The question then is, has the President informed the Leader of the Opposition what are the specific requirements potential candidates must have?
As far as I know, up to the date of writing this letter, the President has not stated publicly what those requirements are. And therein lies the crux of the problem.
Unfortunately, as a result of the non-communication of that critical information, the Leader of the Opposition finds himself in a Double Bind: he does not know what the President wants yet he is expected to give the President what he wants. Anyone in a similar situation would easily end up as a schizophrenic! Until the President publicly states his requirements and not use vague nominalizations, there will continue to be gridlock. I have suggested in my earlier letter a possible set of objective criteria that the President may wish to consider.
While the Leader of the Opposition may be disadvantaged by the lack of information, he, however, enjoys the Power of Legitimacy (the government is a caretaker government with diminished legal authority) and the backing of the CCJ Rulings. He also enjoys the Power of the Leverage of TIME: time is on his side. The more the Granger Administration drags its feet on the matter, the more his administration is seen as not having any respect for the constitution. The Opposition Leader also enjoys the Power of Moral Authority and the Power of Precedent. He can leverage all these factors to the fullest.
What the Leader of the Opposition has to do now is invoke International Standards to overcome this gridlock by insisting that the President picks one out of the 4 nominees he finds ‘not unacceptable’ to him.
So, the way forward if both parties want to see movement in the process instead of blaming each other for not ‘acting in a consensual manner’ whatever that means would be to do following:
First, both parties should sit down and identify and agree on the requirements, ‘the criteria’ that would satisfy the president.
Secondly, assign a ‘weight’ to each criterion. (if they need help call in a Human Resource Expert)
Finally, each party to the negotiation would summarize the results and submit the end result to the President. The President will then have a rated list of the candidates from which to choose.

Yours sincerely
Concerned Citizen

---

---