NOW that President Bharrat Jagdeo has conducted his first-ever cabinet retreat since being elected, in his own right, as head of state of the nation, he can expect more close monitoring of the performances of his ministerial colleagues and their key supporting staff, among them Permanent Secretaries.

Time will confirm the success or otherwise of his plans to “re-engineer” ways to ensure wider inclusion (of non-traditional PPPites?) and greater efficiency in the functioning of the government that, as he said, remains committed to strengthening the process of good, democratic governance.

Does this mean that we can expect that poor and/or corrupt performers (wherever they exist, PPP or non-PPP elements) will have to pay a price, either in portfolio changes or dismissals - if they are ministers - or transfers and/or dismissals if they are officials of the public service or state corporations?

Similarly, will there be rewarding, in appropriate ways, of good and clean performers?

Maintaining in positions good performers after some nine years in government is one thing. Overlooking incompetence, lack of commitment and creativity is quite another. The President himself has earned the reputation of a performer, one anxious to get things done, so anxious at times that he has been accused by detractors - and even some of his own "comrades" - of interference in the areas of their assigned responsibility.

The fact remains that as head of state and government, as captain of the team, he must bear ultimate responsibility. Hence, his right to oversee and to demand accountability must not be rationalised to keep in place those - irrespective of years of loyalty and service - whose job performance is not helping in increased productivity or improved governance, and whose negative attitudes contribute to disharmony and exclusion, rather than harmony and inclusion.

The young, energetic President, with a good record in performance, like some of his ministerial colleagues - though deliberately unrecognised by the opposition and sections of a still hostile media - should also be aware of the implications of getting bogged down in micro-management and sacrificing valuable time for visionary planning and macro-management.

Monitoring Competence
He should also avoid being easily dismissive of criticisms of some of his ministers, whether in the areas of security and provision of essential social services, or personal aides, including those who deal with media and public relations. Competence and a capacity for encouraging friendly, mutual respect are qualities, which, if lacking, could be counter-productive for such appointees and the government they are paid to serve.

Arrogance and aggressiveness by cabinet ministers, political aides, as well as public service officials are to be firmly discouraged, and all need to get out of the denial mode and penchant for excuses or rationalisation of why things either remain undone or wrongly done.

The President has had to point to specific examples recently of failure to properly serve the public. And the Guyana Public Service Union, which seems to be showing a less hostile and more matured mood in dealing with the government, needs to place more emphasis on efficiency, productivity and sheer politeness while it continues to bargain for increased pay for workers.

In his plans to ensure more efficiency and productivity, Jagdeo may perhaps reflect on the value of an idea of his mentor, the late President Cheddi Jagan, to have a small monitoring committee, chaired by himself, to keep abreast of performances by ministries and achievement of set goals.

I do not know if such a committee functioned for any length of time. But it may prove a useful approach or mechanism in helping to remind cabinet ministers and public service managers that their performances are under scrutiny with a view to enhancing productivity and progress in fulfilling the goals and objectives of a government whose legitimacy and popularity remain rooted in the expressed will of the electorate - as demonstrated by the last three free and fair elections.

The PPP/C administration has the advantage of knowing how a combination of incompetence, arrogance, nepotism, corruption and racial discrimination, in addition to some external factors - contributed to ruining the economy and social infrastructure of this country during 28 years of government by the PNC. It must not, therefore, ignore or rationalise incompetence and corruption, wherever it surfaces, on the basis of what existed under PNC rule.

Opposition Politics
The President does not have to lose sleep over current criticisms for travelling to Washington this week to meet with the heads of the international financial institutions in his government's ongoing efforts at debt reductions and securing new development aid.

Even his worse critics would know that he has been at the forefront, following the death of Cheddi Jagan, of Guyana's battle to reduce the mountain of indebtedness inherited from PNC rule. This indebtedness has already been reduced by at least 50 per cent or, in financial terms, by some US$1B.

Efforts at sowing seeds of division between himself and his Finance Minister can be viewed as an old political game in multi-party, cabinet governance.

What is more surprising and should be of concern to the government, as well as the business sector, trade union and civil society, is the disclosure that the PNC has been making complaints to the international financial institutions about "hypocrisy" in releasing funds to Guyana, and without this issue having been placed, as far as this writer is aware, on the table in the Jagdeo-Hoyte dialogue for discussion and clarification.

The attempt also by the PNC to diminish the measure of success by the government in the assistance gained for Guyana through the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPIC) scheme is even more perplexing, to say the least.

This is so particularly when it comes from a party that had earned the dubious reputation of having reduced this country to one of the 20 poorest nations of the world, according to the World Bank. The PNC’s stance also comes at this time of international economic recession and difficult bargaining posturings of the international financial institutions, and while the administration remains under pressure to meet rising pay demands of public sector workers and coping with its obligations to the nation as a whole.

In the cut and thrust of party politics in an open, democratic state, it is to be expected that a government will face unrealistic demands of its opponents. How it responds and manages dissent and opposition will depend on its own appreciation for tolerance, democratic values and in preventing the erosion of its legitimacy, as obtained from the electorate, and guarding against vital institutions, like the judiciary and the disciplined forces from corrosive partisan, sectional agendas.

For example, how the government responds to the latest demand being made by the PNC for "equal time" on public sector media would be instructive. Perhaps reasonable in a particular case or context, this "equal time" demand should not be confused with fair treatment of the views of the opposition - on any issue - without violating the laws of libel or in spreading racial hatred in a polarised society.

The self-serving "equal time" quest - not known to be a factor in governance politics anywhere in the Caribbean outside of elections with mutually agreed ground rules - should certainly not result in the government genuflecting to pressure tactics that cannot be justified, either on the basis of the results of a free and fair election, or recognised policies and procedures in the operations of public sector media here or elsewhere in the region.

Unless, of course, the PPP/C itself is now about to confuse cooperation at bi-partisan committee level with the legal and moral rights of a government that resulted from the March 19 general election. Flexibility and compromise for better governance must be encouraged, but care needs to be taken to avoid radical changes, for short-term opportunistic reasons, that really have little, if anything, to do with good governance and more with narrow political agendas.