Guyana is a democracy. It might be a flawed democracy, but it is still a democracy for all of that, and not a militarised state. So when it was announced that the Cabinet would be meeting for the time being in the army headquarters, the immediate reaction on the part of the electorate ranged from utter disbelief to outright indignation. Ours is not a war cabinet which might require enhanced security arrangements – and even then, it is difficult to imagine that the Officers Mess at Camp Ayanganna would meet those kinds of special circumstances – it is a purely civilian cabinet appointed after an election won last year by an alliance of political parties. What possible justification could there be for making ministerial decisions in the heart of the GDF’s demesne?
Of course, the government was ready with an explanation for the indefensible. Parts of the Ministry of the Presidency are under repair, including the Cabinet Office, a Department of Public Information statement said, and after a “thorough and extensive” search had been conducted for a suitable location the “only venue which met the requirements was the Officers Mess…” Those requirements, the public was told, related to privacy and confidentiality, security, document preparation and reproduction, size, cost, accessibility, parking and minimal disruption to traffic and regular business.
The need to find temporary accommodation while the Ministry of the Presidency is under repairs is understood, but that does not mean that Cabinet has to relocate to military headquarters. As it is, the reasoning advanced in the statement justifying the new temporary meeting place amounted to little more than a contrived pretext. In any event, it left plenty of room for Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo who has some experience in these matters, to jump in and tell the government, “Cabinet meetings can be held anywhere. I have had Cabinet meetings in almost every region of this country. There is nothing special about these meetings…” On Wednesday we reported former president Donald Ramotar as also deriding the security rationalization put forward by the administration. “…[H]e could have got protection in any building they chose,” he said; “You can always move security there. You can use presidential guards and secure your place…”
For his part, Dr Henry Jeffrey, a Stabroek News columnist, did not mince his words to this newspaper, calling the decision “dotish” and the “most ridiculous thing” he had ever heard. A former minister in the PPP/C government, he too said that “[t]here must be one hundred places that the government can go… that is the lamest of excuses… They have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs right across the road from OP. Why not use that?” Even Dr David Hinds, utilizing much more careful language, deemed the decision “not tactically sound”, although not “politically explosive.” “At the end of the day,” he told Stabroek News, “there are political consequences for such actions.”
Why President David Granger took this decision is a matter of some interest. This has been done in a context where questions have already been raised about the prominent role former military officers seem to be playing in government. The Head of State himself, of course, was once a commander of the army, but as Dr Hinds observed in our Wednesday report, that is not why people voted for him. However, the public perception is that former military personnel populate the Ministry of the Presidency, beginning with Minister Joseph Harmon, going on to various advisors and officials up to ministerial level, and extending to chairmen of any number of public inquiries. Uniformed officers, it seems, gave instructions to Walter Roth personnel that they would have to move the museum out of the current building, leaving open the question as to whether any serving army personnel are also sheltering within the Ministry of the Presidency. If that is so, it would be a matter for some concern.
Then there is the President, who conveys the impression to the public that he is more comfortable in the unambiguous, less complex surroundings of the military order, than in the cumbrous, complicated, double-edged world of politicians. He may, possibly, feel irked by the demands our convoluted political system places on him, and the tortuousness of its procedures in comparison with those of an army. However, while the system is in need of reform in several critical areas, it cannot be made to equate to how the military operates and still qualify to be called democratic.
Even if it is the case that the Head of State prefers to hold his Cabinet meetings in the bosom of an institution where he feels psychologically at home, one still has to ask the question whether he was not aware that there would be consequences for doing so. If he was not aware, it would speak volumes about his lack of political sensitivity and his failure to grasp the essence of our political cum ethnic dilemma and the perceptions associated with that dilemma. Apart from anything else it will simply reinforce the views of those who portray this government as a throwback to an earlier undemocratic era.
And not everyone who is uneasy is entrenched within the opposition camp. For those of all persuasions who are genuine democrats, this Cabinet move, no matter how short term, will only be seen as a retrograde and injudicious step inconsistent with liberal constitutional notions, and it will raise the spectre of a lack of a clear distinction between the army and its political masters. It might be added that this could not be contemplated in Jamaica, Barbados or Trinidad without there being a major furore.
But if President Granger was in fact aware of the perceptions his choice of venue would create, and that there would be strong objections to his decision, then he would open himself to criticisms of another kind. If he knew what would happen but went ahead anyway, it would bring his earlier undertakings to the public about social cohesion and inclusion into question. It would imply that he does not care what the electorate thinks; he will proceed to do what he wants anyway. In short, he has unnecessarily undermined his democratic credentials and conveyed to citizens his predilection for operating like a military man rather than a political leader in relation to an issue where not only is there no need to be obdurate, but where it is counter-productive to be so.
This is in addition to potentially exposing himself needlessly to questions about whether he is fully committed to our constitutional state in which the army has no political role. This is not the same thing as to say it does not have a critical role; it surely does in a country like this, with its porous frontiers and its border controversies. However, at a political level it is subordinate to the civilian authority from which it takes its instructions within the bounds of the constitution. One must assume that President Granger is indeed committed to our constitutional state, but he has miscalculated the appearance his decision will have produced, and in our circumstances, there is often no distinction in the public eye between appearance and reality.
The last question in relation to this issue concerns the AFC. Did they make an issue of it with the President, or did they just limply agree that their ministers should go to Camp Ayanganna? Was there any prior discussion with them about the move given that this is a coalition government, or were they just presented with a fait accompli? While the President convenes the Cabinet, and by implication, therefore, selects the location of its meetings, one can think of some places where ministers might legitimately refuse to go, more especially if there is a matter of principle involved. This is not the same as unanimity on a Cabinet decision; the venue is a preliminary issue. So why are the AFC ministers agreeing to go to army headquarters?
