A letter in our edition yesterday from a representative of the diaspora ‒ or at least a segment of it – relayed Guyanese expatriate concerns that the government had reneged on undertakings made to them prior to the election. President David Granger had come to New York several times in the run-up to May 11, 2015, and had visited several groups whose members had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, the letter said. Since the coalition government had come to office, however, the President had gone to New York on more than one occasion, but had made no attempt to meet members of the diaspora. What he had done was meet “with a group of a dozen or so elitist Guyanese who did not mobilize any support for the government before or after the elections.”
Furthermore, the letter went on to say, the government had not “established a Diaspora Department, or a Commission, or appointed a Member of Parliament from the diaspora, or provided the jobs or consultancy positions he had promised during the elections.”
Certainly they are not the only ones to have registered disquiet over the hiatus between what was promised prior to the poll and what has actually transpired since then. Some of those speaking for youth have also made their voices heard, asking where are the young people who were assured prior to the elections there would be positions in government for them. Even on the city council, where there was the obvious option of choosing the young Sherod Duncan as mayor ‒ admittedly from the AFC ‒ the solid block of what were essentially PNC councillors put back in office the old guard, more especially Mayor Patricia Chase-Green. As it is, with the parking meter scandal, among other things, she and her associates have done nothing to distinguish themselves or persuade anyone that real change has come to the M&CC.
The diplomatic appointments too, which took an inordinately long time to be announced, are not replete with the names of representatives noted for their youth and vigour, although there are a few.
Youth has not characterized appointments in the central administration either, although having said that the caution should be borne in mind that age in and of itself should not be a criterion unless it is married with appropriate qualifications (in a general sense), some measure of experience and suitability for the post. ‘Young’ is a relative term, of course, and very young people learn how bureaucracies function in the first instance by entering them lower down the system. That youth in and of itself was not the panacea for all our ills was one lesson the citizenry learnt from Mr Bharrat Jagdeo’s sojourn in the Office of the President during the term of the last administration.
Whatever was promised to specific groups – the diaspora, young people or whatever – the citizenry in general was led to expect that after the election they could expect to see the evolution of a meritocratic state. The more cynical among them might have wondered where these people were coming from, given our human resource crisis, unless the diaspora were to be tapped. In fact, at the time of the unconscionable increases in ministerial salaries, one of the things the public was told was that it was getting quality ministers. With some exceptions, the electorate has had ample time to be disabused of that idea, if it ever believed it in the first place, which is doubtful.
But even at other levels in the public bureaucracy meritocracy is not the first description which comes to mind. Appointments often appear to reflect loyalty and/or old-time political associations or former – and occasionally, current ‒ military connections. In fact, the President and his Minister of State Joseph Harmon appear more comfortable with those who have been in the army than with anyone else. It seems almost superfluous to observe that the full range of talents which a modern society will require do not reside exclusively in the military, and many of them may not be found there at all.
Having said that, many of the civilian appointments are hardly suitable either. Most recently, there is the case of Chief Executive Officer Richard Van-West Charles of GWI, whose conduct is under investigation by the board of the utility. In the first instance, his post was not advertised, although at first glance, given his qualifications and experience he did not appear to be an altogether unsuitable candidate. It has not been revealed how Mr Van West-Charles was appointed, but the electorate would presumably not be too far off the mark in concluding it had a political hue given his association with the Burnham era.
It has to be acknowledged that as mentioned earlier, there is a critical shortage of skills here which needs to be made good at some level before the country can ever hope to start on the road to progress. However, the APNU+AFC government came into office it would very much appear, without a single thought in their combined heads as to how this deficit was to be made good. Their overriding concern was some measure of political balance, and who among them would secure which portfolio. The President – or his Minister of State ‒ inserted his military preferences into the mix, and then there were the internal loyalty factors to be considered by the PNC on the one hand, and the AFC on the other.
In the ranks of the diaspora, it is true, there will be any number of persons with skills which are sorely needed here. The problem lies in how to source them and how to insert them into a system which is hedged around with rules about hiring, without creating a slew of ‘advisors’ outside the official bureaucracy, as this government has already done. The diaspora may not appreciate that consultants are less needed here than qualified professionals who can do a serious job of work.
The administration, of course, has no authoritative survey to hand indicating what its human resource needs are in every sector and where the worst gaps are, let alone a policy for where and how skills can be accessed. For the moment, therefore, integrating any significant number of Guyanese in the diaspora into the system on a full-time arrangement would be challenging, although it might be possible to accommodate a number, particularly retirees, on a short-term basis.
It might be added that any member of the diaspora can apply for a post here, and in terms of public positions, those are supposed to be advertised. If diasporans want to come, therefore, they could always apply in the same way as everyone else, although outside that framework there are the special concessions for moving here such as the previous government offered. Of course, the salaries here are not encouraging, and one imagines that it is only those expatriates who are financially secure who would consider them, and they would be mostly too old to qualify for our public service.
As a start, however, as yesterday’s letter made clear, there should be some agency here which deals with diaspora affairs, and which should keep in contact with its members. It should also have a register of those who might be prepared to contribute their skills on a long or short-term basis, and which could supply information on how the system works here, etc.
As for those senior government officials who put in an appearance now and then at major diaspora centres like New York, they would be well advised to make contact with their fellow Guyanese. Diasporas can also function as important pressure groups in the lands of their adoption.
