Dear Editor,
Last week was supposed to be a good week for the APNU+AFC government. The government should have been basking in its widely-praised diplomatic and public relations counterattack against Venezuela’s military aggression on our border in September. President Granger followed up his tough maiden address at the UN with a press conference at home on October 2 that showed he is fully abreast of the issues across the ministries and is adept at highlighting achievements and beating back opposition criticisms. These positive messages and image should have dominated the media and the minds of Guyanese last week.
Instead, all that was wiped clean by the announcement last week of the salary increase for ministers.
There is no better time than now for the coalition government to conduct emergency stocktaking.
The storm of protest over ministerial pay tells us a few things about our political behaviour in the post-PPP-government era and about the APNU+AFC’s slowness in grappling with it.
Firstly, a public zero-tolerance exists not for all perceived or actual mis-steps made by the government, but only for those acts deemed to mirror PPP’s previous excesses and arrogance. The 23 years of PPP rule have left raw psychological and emotional sensitivities and intolerances in many Guyanese. So, while many persons were willing to excuse the poor representation of women and non-Afro-Guyanese on state boards as government inattentiveness, they are heatedly reacting (and over-reacting) to the salary increases. The coalition, as such, took two hits: one for the decision being seen as unfair, untimely or excessive, and the other for the decision looking too PPP-ish. On balance, this public attitude does not give the government much scope for error or, for that matter, for hard but necessary decisions. The “just like the PPP” charge is likely to be heard again and again, and may even extend into the most normal of circumstances.
Secondly, it is increasingly evident over the last two or so months, but more so last week, that supporters, well-wishers or sympathizers of the governing coalition are willing to openly criticize it in the media. Already, there are a number of instances where friendly social groups, trade unions, political commentators, and others have gently to harshly rapped the government over the knuckles. While many such persons and entities routinely criticized the PPP government in the past, they were then considered, or self-identified, as opposition forces. Under the current government, these persons and entities have apparently taken on the role of guardians or custodians of a hard-fought and long-awaited political liberation in Guyana.
They are therefore extremely sensitive to any acts of the coalition that suggest they fought or voted for nothing.
Thirdly, political behaviour in the post-PPP era is already pointing to a major challenge for the coalition government in the very next election. It is going to be judged mostly on its own record. The strong anti-PPP sentiments, which helped drive massive support for the coalition parties in 2011 and 2015, are likely to wane or be ignored in 2020.
The APNU+AFC coalition must not only be cognizant of these and other factors, it must acquire the capacity to respond to them. The coalition is obviously in need of a political strategy accompanied by a strong public relations plan to set them apart from the previous PPP government in terms of responsiveness to the people, reasonableness of actions, and respectfulness for norms of good governance. The coalition has to also relentlessly sell itself and every achievement (be in a continuous campaign mode). It should not allow, as a simple example, its increase to public servants to be repeatedly and incorrectly cast as ‘only a 5% increase’, when the 2015 budget clearly speaks of stepped increases as high as over 20%.
That work should start now with a proper response to the public concerns over the sharp increase of pay for ministers.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
