Dr. Vincent Adams used the wrong set of words

Dec 09, 2020 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

Kaieteur News – Dr. Vincent Adams is quoted in the newspapers as saying that professionals should not face losing their job because of political preference. That statement is a misleading one. Or maybe Dr. Adams was innocent when he put it over but he put it over wrongly.
No one should even think of removing any person from a job because of political preference. We all have political choices. When a professional gets involved in the hierarchy of a political party that is in power or in the opposition, then a whole debate emerges about sociology and moral values.
It is a universal practice that judges cannot and must not be allowed in political organizations. Anyone arguing against that should not be part of human society. One example should suffice. If a judge sits in the hierarchy of a party and his/her leader is involved in a land dispute and he/she gives judgement in favour of his/her leader, not one person in the world will believe the ruling was objective.
I believe a politically involved professional has a deep, moral obligation to the country to resign when he/she gets an appointment because of political connection and government changes hand. One factor that is at work when that happens is “security trust.” How can John still be allowed to continue to be in charge of the office of civil aviation operations when he sits in the nerve-room of an opposition party?
Which government is going to feel secure knowing that an important office in the state is controlled by a huge opposition figure? The PPP never allowed it. The PNC never accepted it. The AFC never embraced it. If a new party comes to power in 2025, it will not approve of such a person.
Just two examples before we move on. David Hinds was the alternative WPA representative in the executive body of the APNU (not PNC). But it was the very colleagues of Dr. Hinds in the APNU-led administration that disapproved of one of its own criticizing his own government in the Chronicle as a columnist. Dr. Hinds was removed. Secondly, the PPP, PNC and AFC never approved of the state own Chronicle having an opposition columnist when they controlled the government.
Dr. Adams was not a person with political preference only. He was part (I think he still is) of the political leadership of the state. He was a key figure the two most important decision-making bodies of the AFC – national executive and management committee.
Let’s clarify a situation for Dr. Adams that he may not be familiar with. He is quoted as saying that Carl Greenidge was a politician but the government of the PPP still assigned him a state job. Mr. Greenidge acted morally courageous when during the election fiasco, he was asked by President Granger to undertake a task which had he done so would have destroyed his career and the credibility of Guyana. For that moral obligation to Guyana, he was removed as Foreign Secretary.
There were two occasions in which Dr. Adams could have shown similar courage. First, he could have emulated his AFC colleague, Dominic Gaskin. Secondly, he could have done what Greenidge did – show obligation to the Guyanese people. I do not accept his position that as a non-voting American he didn’t see it as appropriate to let his voice be heard during the election-rigging drama. But as a non-voting American, he made decisions for Guyanese that impacted on their lives
Three areas that Dr. Adams must be pressed on, but he will get away with it because Guyana has one of the poorest practices of journalism anywhere in the world. One is transparency. He is reported in the press as saying that government must be transparent and accountable. But as a politician he does not practice those two virtues. He was one of three persons that negotiated the renewal of the Cummingsburg Accord between the PNC and AFC. The contents of the conclusion were never transmitted to the AFC’s 33 person executive and to the public and remain secret up to this day.
Two – The selection of the nine MPs from the AFC was a horrible manifestation of dark incestuousness that resulted in grave injustice to certain long-standing AFC stalwarts. Dr. Adams went along with the selections. Three – He said that he made known to the AFC his positions during the five month election rigging. Well, tell us Dr. Adams what were those positive instincts you displayed?
Finally, one of the AFC leaders has declared that it is time the two major races be separated to which he objected. Does he still see that person as an AFC colleague?

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)