Nothing qualifies as a matter of urgency in Guyana these days. Take, for instance, the service commissions. They are still suspended in political limbo despite a “constructive engagement” between the President and the Leader of the Opposition five months ago. As a consequence, all appointments, promotions, etc, in the public, police and teaching services, as well as the judiciary, are on seemingly indefinite hold.

While people do not want to be bothered with the details, everyone knows that just like every other impasse in the public arena, the underlying reason has to do with politics in the first instance, and a modicum of bumbling in the second. The main problem is that the Appointive Committee of Parliament which has to recommend two persons to the National Assembly to be nominated for appointment by the President to the Public Service Commission cannot agree on the two names. Until the Public Service Commission is constituted, no chairman of that commission can be appointed; and until a chairman is appointed, the Police and Judicial Service Commissions cannot be set up either because under the constitution the chairman is required to be a member of those two commissions as well.

The Appointive Committee comprises six members from the Government and five from the Opposition. The body is expected to put forward the two nominees for the Public Service Commission after first consulting the Guyana Public Service Union (GPSU), the Federated Union of Government Employees (FUGE) and the Public Service Senior Staff Association (PSSSA). And it is here that the political fly in the ointment makes its appearance. The GPSU and FUGE object to the inclusion of the PSSSA because it was formed at the instigation of Cabinet Secretary, Dr Roger Luncheon, and is composed of permanent secretaries, deputy permanent secretaries and heads of Government departments, all of whom are hired on contract by the Office of the President.

The very least that can be said is that the two Public Service unions are not mistaken in believing that the PSSSA hardly constitutes a union in the true sense of that term. At the bottom of the problem, however, is the perception that including the PSSSA for consultation potentially gives the Government yet another advantage in relation to the composition of the Public Service Commission, one of whose other members is appointed at the discretion of the President, and three of whom are appointed by the President after meaningful consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.

It might be noted in passing, that should the President and Leader of the Opposition be unable to reach accord on the matter of the three members, there are procedures which would allow the President to make the appointments unilaterally. As such, therefore, the Government does not even need the extra leverage which the PSSSA might give it in relation to the other two members.

While the ideal is service commissions which are independent of both Government and political parties, and which make their decisions without fear or favour according to the applicable rules and principles, in a polarised society such as this one neither side really acknowledges the existence of individuals who are truly independent of mind: people are perceived as being either for a party or against them. In practice, therefore, arguments about representation on given bodies have tended to substitute obsessions with political balance or control - depending on the perspective - for concerns about independence.

The governing party in particular, is sensitive about the public service, which not unjustifiably it has always seen as dominated by those who are unsympathetic to it politically, and who are represented by a union which is openly hostile. It has never really relinquished the view that if it had control of the public service, then its administrative difficulties would be dramatically eased. While there is no doubt that the official bureaucracy is light years away from performing as it should, as the experience of the Burnham years has taught us, greater party political control is the last thing which would alleviate the problem.

True democracies flourish in circumstances where there are strong independent institutions which are competently manned, and where civil society has a vigorous presence. We are not in that happy situation. However, after eleven years in office, the Government has not yet learned that more control paradoxically means less control in the end. As has been observed many times before, this is no longer a rule-governed society; however, it will not become a rule-governed society by the Government insinuating itself into every area of human endeavour, and being in a position to exert pressure on every institution and organization in the country. Sycophancy was never a recommended principle of administration.

The political deadlock aside, there is an element of bumbledom which has played its part in the delay in the setting up of the commissions. A legal drafting error relating to the composition of the Police Service Commission was not noticed by the Government until after the relevant article had already been passed in Parliament. The administration would now like that rectified, and would need the PNCR’s co-operation in the National Assembly in order to do so.

The only commission which is not affected by the political impasse is the Teaching Service Commission, but as we reported on Monday, the President and Minister of Local Government who have the main responsibility for the appointments to that body, have made no move whatever to appoint its members. Furthermore, they have made no public statement either as to why they have not done so. Given the crisis in our schools, this procrastination is surely inexcusable.

These interminable delays which have stymied the proper functioning of the bureaucracy, and have caused major difficulties in the education sector would be quite intolerable in any better regulated nation. Are the politicians really surprised that the electorate is totally weary of them?

In the first instance, the onus is on the Government to treat the issue as priority, and work with the Opposition to get agreement as quickly as possible on the matter of the Public Service Commission. Where this is concerned, progress would be made if it showed a greater disposition to flexibility, and less of an inclination to total control. If the issue of the two members were resolved, then the onus would be on the PNCR to show goodwill by coming to agreement on amending the article dealing with the composition of the Police Service Commission.