Political asylum
Editorial
Guyana Chronicle
November 17, 2006
THE recent poor rating that Guyana received in Transparency International’s Corruption Index must be located within the context of active attempts to improve fiscal rectitude in developing countries.
The corruption index is not in itself an objective measure of corruption but instead measures perceptions of corruption derived from surveys which in themselves are open to question.
The above qualifications are in no way intended to sweep aside the concerns about corruption which undoubtedly exist within Guyana and can be said to permeate both the public and private sectors. What the perception surveys do support are the demands by international donors for greater financial reform with a stress on greater transparency.
It is noteworthy that financial reforms are an ongoing process in Guyana and far greater scrutiny and information is today applied and is available on public accounts.
Efforts at strengthening this process can only improve the country’s ability to demonstrate the steps being taken to ensure greater transparency and accountability.
Greater oversight by the parliamentary public accounts committee, more resources for independent constitutional offices such as the Auditor General’s Office, disciplining recalcitrant public officials and giving greater legislative teeth to the Integrity Commission, will all translate to greater confidence in financial transparency and consequently towards improving international perceptions about corruption in Guyana.
The government is no doubt mindful of its responsibilities and will no doubt be ensuring that it addresses these issues in due course to correct any exaggerated perceptions harboured by the international community about corruption in Guyana.
What the government should also address are the claims by a Guyanese family that they suffered political victimisation and threats at the hands of supporters of the ruling party. This family made the claims in their successful application for political asylum in Canada, even though most Guyanese are unaware of any such developments in Guyana.
The success of the family in gaining political asylum is definitely more politically damaging than Transparency International’s recently published Corruption Index. The fact that a family can claim that they were victims of political malice while living in Guyana, based solely on their alleged political affiliation, has painted a negative picture, at least in the eyes on the Canadian Immigration authorities, about political rights in this country.
The government should move swiftly to have this case reopened so that the facts as disclosed to the Canadian Immigration authorities in support of the application are brought to light. These facts should be thoroughly investigated and a report filed to the Canadian Immigration authorities.
This will also serve to ensure that the international community is not of a mistaken perception when it comes to the subject of political rights in this country. Many are concerned that this case may paint a negative and unrealistic picture of what takes place in Guyana.
It is therefore important that while the government outlines the many initiatives it has undertaken to improve financial transparency in the country, it should spare no effort in examining the circumstances under which a family was recently granted political asylum in Canada.