The United Nations has more themes it wants to highlight than it has days in the year to mark them. Most slide by without even a mention in the local press, but not December 9th, which has been designated International Anti-Corruption Day. This occasion produced an address from US Ambassador Sarah-Ann Lynch, as well as statements from bodies such as Transparency International Guyana in addition to a number of letters in the newspapers.
Corruption is an issue which comes well within the ambit of Guyanese experience since it pervades the entire society. Even otherwise upright people sometimes find themselves cornered into giving a bribe to an official or private employee providing a service in order to obtain that to which they are entitled, or for which they have already paid. The notoriety of the traffic police who routinely expect a douceur to avoid a charge for a minor offence, among other things, is hardly in need of elaboration.
In a column in this newspaper some time ago, Mr Ralph Ramkarran wrote: “Guyana’s procurement institutions are weak. Its anti-corruption and bribery laws are weak. Its anti-corruption institutions, where they exist are weak. Its natural resources fund can be plundered. Guyana is a sitting duck.” All our governments have been corrupt at some level, or have tolerated officials within their ranks who were. And none of them has shown any enthusiasm for drafting more robust laws against corruption, or creating autonomous institutions which could monitor government operations, or provide a framework of accountability and transparency for the exploitation of our natural resources, in particular oil. Those deficits speak for themselves.
Many transactions are not open to public view, but one form is obvious to the public, and that is cronyism, even if particular instances cannot be challenged on legal grounds. Citizens have witnessed all kinds of contracts going to friends or associates or in circumstances where it is suspected money has passed, and there have been no repercussions. Over the years our politicians have treated the Guyanese patrimony as if it is their own, and have been resistant to being corralled by laws which would reduce their dominion.
As has been noted many times before, the electorate tends not to penalise its politicians, not just because our somewhat anomalous political system makes that a challenge, but also because voters are blinkered in an ethical sense. It is the other side which is always guilty of corruption, not one’s own, and even if there is some recognition that one’s own side is not above reproach, the view is that it is better to have them in office than their opponents. As such, whatever a party might have done, it will not be taught an electoral lesson by the voters − the arguable case of the 2015 election excepted − although if asked all electors would say they want corruption to cease.
We have yet to reach a point where most people accept objective ethical standards in politics rather than partisan ones, and until we do, great effort from other directions will be needed to persuade governments to bring in the kind of legislation which would penalise corruption and strengthen institutions which require accountability and transparency from officials of all kinds. It might be noted in addition, that in the current climate incorruptible individuals who do go into government will not be able to change the culture; they either have to live with it, or the culture changes them.
Those within a party who raise questions about its corruption or related matters are unlikely to get a hearing and will probably have to leave. This is not the UK, where on the Tory side, at least, backbenchers are voicing open criticism of Prime Minister Boris Johnson over his ethical standards and what all sides of the House perceive as his lack of honesty. If his party this week loses a critical by-election where the previous Conservative incumbent enjoyed an almost 23,000 majority, then his job may well be in jeopardy. Of course, we have an executive president who does not sit in Parliament, and it is difficult to see under what circumstances such a person could be removed from office when their party is in government, no matter how lacking in integrity they may appear to be. The point is that the backbench Tories are applying the same moral standards to Mr Johnson as are the opposition Labour and Scottish Nationalist Parties. That is a concept still alien to us.
For all of that, the climate in which local parties in government have to operate has now changed, and while they may feel relatively safe from the condemnation of their own supporters, there are a number of civil society groups emerging which are exerting pressure, in addition to external forces. There is an increasing intolerance for corruption all over the world and the government may find that difficult to ignore over time. Ambassador Lynch, for example, said in her statement:
“We continue to look forward to the government’s initiatives to combat corruption, including Natural Resource Fund legislation that offers both transparency and clear oversight, and to a meaningful and inclusive process of stakeholder engagement. A strong anti-corruption stance now will show Guyanese citizens, and the rest of the world, that the government is committed to transparent institutions that utilize the country’s resources to the long-term benefit for all Guyanese.”
Three months ago the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime held a workshop here and is to make recommendations on strengthening Guyana’s laws, policies and institutions dealing with anti-corruption. A release from the AG Chambers reaffirmed that Guyana was committed to combating corruption in all its forms, which was “evidenced by the fact that the country has signed on to all major international anti-corruption agreements in the hemisphere.” It might be remarked that every citizen in this country knows that Guyana governments have a habit of ignoring all international agreements to which they have been signatory.
Exactly how the government will deal with the recommendations when they come remains to be seen, although what can be said is that so far the government’s record on contracts and stakeholder participation does not inspire confidence in its intentions. To give one or two examples, there is the curious tale of the seabob licences, which Agriculture Minister Zulfikar Mustapha still has not given an adequate account of, or the questions surrounding the Bamia contract, or the failures on the stakeholder consultation front such as at COP 26 and the Marudi Mountain deal.
This is all quite apart from what can only be regarded as major dereliction in relation to providing a rational legal framework for the oil industry, and how the government has proceeded in terms of contracts and decisions generally. Its modus operandi has made many sectors in the society extremely anxious. It has been more energetic with regard to investigating land deals, but then true to form these relate to the decisions of the previous administration.
Ambassador Lynch had other points to make, including enhancing the capabilities of the criminal justice system to deal with corruption, as well as procurement processes so they comply with international anti-corruption standards. She did not omit mention of members of the private sector, who would also have to answer for any role they played in corrupt practices. Our private sector should take note.
“Government operations should be transparent such that citizens and the media can provide oversight and hold officials accountable,” said the Ambassador. One cannot imagine that the government will be more amenable to this suggestion than they have been in the past, where everything they do has been treated as classified. It is just that it is more difficult than it used to be for it to avoid scrutiny, even without the requisite legislation in place. This is the age of social media, where like-minded critics of a particular action or decision can exchange views and challenge the government. Then, as mentioned earlier, there are a number of civil society groups making their voices heard, who will begin to exert increasing pressure, and finally, the government will find it cannot stonewall international pressure indefinitely if it wants to promote the image of a true democracy. In the end, tackling corruption starts at the top and then percolates down through the society.
