Politically free Public Service unlikely in near future
- Gopaul
Guyana Chronicle
September 17, 2003
PUBLIC Service Ministry Permanent Secretary, Dr Nanda Gopaul, has ruled out any likelihood, in the near future, of a neutral or politically free Public Service in Guyana or the Caribbean.
That is because politics has been dominated by two major parties in every country in this region, he said in an address to the Caribbean Labour Administration Conference here last week.
Speaking at the Le Meridien Pegasus Hotel in Georgetown, he noted that, in Jamaica there are Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and People’s National Party (PNP); in Trinidad there are People’s National Movement (PNM) and United National Congress (UNC); in Barbados there are Barbados Labour Party (BLP) and Democratic Labour Party (DLP) and, in Guyana People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and People’s National Congress (PNC).
He said, at some point in history, one of those political parties would accede to office and, when employment is taking place in the currency of one party, key appointments will be made during that period of government.
“Very often, these employees continue to function even after there is a change in government and here is where, at times, we have claims that the employees have not demonstrated loyalty to the new administration,” Gopaul posited.
He said there is the additional problem of union leaders being openly aligned to certain political parties and, when the party to which they are aligned is in office, there is the experience of “a soft approach” being taken at negotiations on issues of national concern to some of them.
But, when there is a change in government, increased militancy is seen on the part of the same union leaders, Gopaul pointed out.
According to him, this is a very unhealthy situation in the region and any country where political loyalty is given priority over issues that fall within the ambit of collective bargaining.
“If we were to examine the Guyana situation, for example, we will see how the Guyana Public Service Union has expressly been more militant when the PPP is in the Government and less militant when the PNC was in office,” the Permanent Secretary said.
He recalled that, in the 1960s under the PPP Administration, the GPSU participated in an 80-day strike and was very vocal against the Government for the duration and that work stoppage had a destabilising effect on that party and government.
Gopaul said, again, in 1999 GPSU was involved in a 55-day strike, against the same PPP Government and it resulted in serious setbacks for the economy.
“During the entire period of the PNC Government, although there was a wage freeze for years, imposition of salaries, the denial of free collective bargaining and a host of anti-trade union measures, there was a virtual silence on the part of the leadership of the GPSU, apart from one period, in the late 1980s, when one of its leaders decided to make a stand...(and) he was immediately exiled,” the Permanent Secretary recalled.
Gopaul assured his audience that he was not doing the analysis to ridicule any union, its leadership or political leadership, but merely to warn of the danger that such relationships could pose to an effective and free collective bargaining process.
“Whenever union leaders try to give sustenance to political parties of their choice rather than promoting the interest of their members in a principled and systematic way, inherent dangers exist for negotiations, the promotion of workers’ interests and the building of an effective workers’ movement,” he asserted.
“It will also create a serious division in the workforce and, very often, this will create an atmosphere of politicking within the public sector and workplaces,” he said, adding that this type of atmosphere eats away at the professionalism, which should be the paramount basis for the operation of any Public Service.
Gopaul said, too, that the other trend which has affected the Public Service within recent years is one where key and strategic positions, like those of Permanent Secretaries and Heads of Departments, are appointed either directly by Prime Ministers or Heads of State wherever applicable.
He argued that this situation takes away the permanent nature of public service employment and brings it into the realm of a performance appraisal system for contracted periods.
It also assures Government of a degree of political comfort and is consistent with what is obtain in several developed countries, such as the United States of America.