Dear Editor,
One of the contentions of the coalition government regarding ministerial salary increase is the argument put forward by the President himself that higher salary increases for ministers (presumably not the rank and file public servants) will lead to “good governance”. On the surface, this seems to make sense. Barring the fact that some politicians go into public service to satisfy an intrinsic human urge to serve a greater cause, higher wages may potentially deter the tendency to engage in malfeasance if the risk of being caught is greater than losing one’s job. In addition, there is a greater possibility that with offers of higher salary, the government can secure the best candidate from the public or private sector that Guyana has to offer.
Widespread corruption, be it perceptual or real, is a problem for the new regime, and it makes sense to establish clear standards for acceptable behaviour for high officials in the government. The PPP may have contributed in two ways to making corruption seem like a normal practice, namely, by replacing civil servants who refuse to toe the line and by penalizing businessmen for their lack of support. Granger’s defence of the salary increase is based on a gamble that because the perception of corruption was so strongly associated with the PPP government, criticism will dissipate over time. But, as Stabroek News has rightly queried, what authoritative body is monitoring ministerial workload, how was this pay scale determined, and how is it justified by cost of living adjustment?
Corruption does have a toll on developing economies, including ours, though it is difficult to quantify its value. If this is any indication, the Corruption Perceptions Index produced by Transparency International (TI) in 2014 ranked Guyana at 124, Haiti at 115, Suriname at 100 and the US at 17, all out of 175 countries and territories surveyed. It is interesting to note that some of the fastest growing economies, such as Indonesia, India, Brazil and China, are also deemed the most corrupt in the world, according to TI. More importantly, would ministerial salary increases lead to “good governance” (how government uses its powers to manage the country’s resources for development). Some research has suggested that measures of corruption and poor governance are more closely correlated with per capita income and with the Human Development Index (HDI). Richer countries, on average, have less reported corruption and better functioning governments. The same holds true for countries with high levels of HDI, a measure that includes levels of health and educational attainment as well as a logarithmic measure of income. In other words, very high levels of human development are associated with low levels of corruption.
In its report, Governance for Sustainable Human Development, the UNDP, as well as the World Bank have identified several factors that contribute to good governance, including respect for the rule of law, transparency in government, government responsiveness and accountability, consensus-building, and, effectiveness and efficiency. It is not uncommon that in the developed countries, a central feature of transparency in government requires that government officials publicly declare their assets before they take office. Guyanese are told that APNU+AFC ministers are deserving of a higher salary because they have greater responsibilities and the existing salary structure is out of touch with reality. However, the current increase in ministerial salary does not seem to be based on desired experience or previous ministerial performance, but more so on loyalty to a political party. This is probably why the responses by several coalition leaders to public criticisms on this issue are seen as overbearing and offensive.
In reality, salary increases may have little or no influence on good governance, though corruption remains a common barrier to economic development because it adds to the overhead costs of social and economic development. There is no guarantee that salary increases will lead to good governance. What the Granger government should be focusing on is realistic measures that have a more direct impact on corruption, such as, improving the rule of law, transparency, creating an effective Ombudsman, and better mechanisms for detecting and punishing corruption. This does not rule out establishing a precedent whereby PPP officials found guilty of corrupt actions while in office are prosecuted to the extent that the law allows.
Corruption in developing countries like Guyana cannot be effectively addressed simply by applying anti-corruption structures that work in developed countries. The experience the latter countries have acquired in terms of legislation, public procurement codes, institutionalized procedures, multiple bureaucratic check points, and control procedures is valuable, but it will take generations to develop them in Guyana. It requires a re-thinking of the role of government and greater involvement of a civic-minded public. Linking reduced corruption to economically developed countries is one thing. However, arguing that a salary increase can automatically lead to good governance without creating institutional changes in the way government does business is quite another.
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack
