Cabinet changes
Editorial
Stabroek News
January 19, 2003
There has been no announcement so far as to whether the Cabinet will go into retreat this year to review the successes and failures of the different ministries over the past twelve months, and chart a course for 2003. If it doesn't, it would be understandable. After all, what do some modest successes matter when these are negated by one overarching failure. And what true progress can there be until that overarching failure is addressed?
Leaving that aside, however, it has to be said that this is one of the few countries in the world - particularly among the democracies - where the ministerial complement has been so stable. Most governments know that voter fatigue sets in after a few years, and that people - even supporters - get bored with the same faces over an extended period, and like to see a change or two at the top. The general rule of thumb is that a measure of reshuffling (for which read replacement) is necessary, otherwise the electorate will do the reshuffling for you come election time.
In addition to the variety principle, the accountability principle is also in operation in most cabinets, with some changes being generated by resignations arising out of ministerial mistakes. An administration which allowed ministers to continue in office in spite of well-publicised failures, would not normally expect to survive a national election. Of course, the situation in Guyana is singular, insofar as the Government with its built-in ethnic majority does not expect to get voted out. Unlike other governments, therefore, it can afford to ignore not just gaffes on the part of Cabinet members, but even instances of conspicuous incompetence or misjudgment.
A few ill-chosen remarks have cost some incumbents their portfolios in other countries, but one has to wonder exactly what a minister has do here to be asked to resign. The evidence of the past ten years gives little cause for optimism that the Government intends to apply stringent standards of performance for ministers in the foreseeable future.
There are other practical reasons why heads of government in more regular lands do not allow their cabinet colleagues to grow roots in their ministries. Other than in the case of exceptional appointees, they want to avoid the complacency that can set in after a minister has warmed the same official seat for too long, as well as discourage the feeling that the relevant portfolio is the official's private preserve. Ministers of talent may be retained in a cabinet, but they will usually be moved from ministry to ministry so they acquire the widest possible experience of administration. It is true that in Guyana's case, ministers are periodically reshuffled in the literal sense of that term, but it is hardly with the aim in mind of exposing those of exceptional talent to the varied aspects of government.
There is another problem which has been remarked on before, but which bears repeating: why, in a small country like this, are we burdened with so many ministers of government? This party came into office talking about being "mean, lean and clean." Exactly what happened to that vision along the way, only heaven knows, because currently we have a cabinet whose numbers exceed those of the PNC years.
Among other things, we now have two Foreign Ministers, and while Mr Insanally argued at the end of last year that this was necessary on account of the volume of work, one wondered exactly what was so much more onerous about the duties associated with his post in 2002 than was the case in the past. Certainly there is a great deal less to show for this duplication of effort, bureaucracy and expense than there used to be. And even if one were to accept for the sake of argument that two ministers were necessary for this portfolio, the Minister of Foreign Trade should be a minister within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rather than heading a separate entity with overlapping responsibilities. At the very least, the current arrangement is surely not a formula for efficiency.
However, as everyone knows, the foreign affairs portfolio is far from being the only problem area, or even the biggest problem area in the current circumstances. It is about time that the governing party woke up to the fact that pugnacious press releases are no substitute for results, and that the population - including its own supporters - is very well aware of who is not performing. It is taxpayers' money which pays the salaries of the ministers, and there can be no justification for wasting that money, more especially in a poor country like Guyana.
Moreover, it does the Government's image absolutely no good if it gives the impression, erroneous or otherwise, that it is just in the business of providing jobs for the boys and girls.
Last year was a disastrous one for the administration, and it has surely run out of excuses. There can be no argument now for not making some Cabinet changes.
