The release of a video of a gold dealer making allegations of corruption that involved members of the Government, the business community and the law enforcement agencies has transfixed the nation in these final weeks to the elections. Sadly, corruption – “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”, one definition from TI – appears to be endemic to the human condition. Apart from questions of morality, its effects have been shown to be quite pernicious on organised polities, with TI’s summary that it “erodes trust, weakens democracy, hampers economic development and further exacerbates inequality, poverty, social division…” resonating.
Since we will be “entrusting power” for another five years to one of the parties competing for office, the allegations might serve positively for us to have a frank discussion on the phenomenon in Guyana. We were bequeathed institutions such as the legislature, bureaucracy (civil service) and police that extolled “professionalism” as the antidote to corruption. The ideal was for the strict observance of the laws which were enacted as the guardrails against corruption.
These guardrails, however, were subverted when, between 1964 and 1992, the PNC consolidated power through dismissals of opposition supporters and mass hiring of the party faithful in an enormously enlarged bureaucracy, police, and the 80% “commanding heights of the economy”. The increase in the size of the bureaucracy was accompanied by an increase in the discretionary powers permitted in its dealing with the public.
The process of “politicisation and de-bureaucratisation” – which becomes endemic – persists into the present. Weberian criteria of bureaucratic development, such as objectivity, precision and continuity, discretion and qualification for office, were abandoned. Through the doctrine of “party paramountcy”, the Office of the General Secretary of the PNC and the Ministry of the National Development (OGSPNCMND) oversaw the ideological “purity” of bureaucratic training and performance. There was to be no objectivity in the reference to PNC policies: they were to be supported and not merely executed. Political loyalty became the sole criterion for measuring competence and suitability for being hired or for making recommendations.
A “party bureaucracy” was developed parallel to, but superior to, the state bureaucracy at every level, facilitating the party to assume many state functions, especially in reference to hirings and firings. State employees were monitored for adherence to the party line, and dismissals accompanied violations. This was enabled through the requirement that higher state bureaucrats be party members. The DE bureaucratisation led to corruption and inefficiencies, which were major factors in the deterioration of the economy.
Submission to the system in Guyana, and survival, implied acceptance of corruption as a way of life. The wreckage of the economy created a corresponding ravaging of the standard of living of the bureaucratic class, the police and every party or state official who kept the PNC in power. Taking their cues from Burnham and his top lieutenants, who had corrupted every institution to maintain power and their ostentatious lifestyle, the lower echelons demanded ‘bribes’ from the citizenry for the performance of their legally required tasks. Citizens boasted of having ‘lines’ – connections. Lord Acton’s famous dictum was reversed: in Guyana “corruption was power, and absolute corruption was absolute power”.
After 1992, when the PPP returned to office through free and fair elections, they were quite diffident in cleaning up the systemic corruption through the needed root and branch reform in all national institutions – especially the police and bureaucracy. The PNC immediately launched a virulent and violent “slow fyaah; mo’ fyaah” campaign against the PPP, claiming “ethnic cleansing” and economic discrimination against the PNC’s traditional African Guyanese base. This segued into an outright armed insurrection against the state. Vigilante groups were formed to take on the insurrectionists because it was felt the state institutions, such as the police and army, were in an untenable position. This resulted in over 400 deaths, more than double those of the defining 1960s racial violence.
In 2000 I was one of the founders of the Rise, Organise And Rebuild (ROAR) Guyana Movement that campaigned for confronting the systemic deformities of the state, where widespread corruption was its morbid manifestation. For instance, we pushed for “professionalisation” of the police force through greater ethnic representativeness, decentralisation of command and focus on core policing imperatives. For the corruption of government officials and the bureaucracy, we proposed that Singapore’s lead be followed: match government employees’ salaries with the private sector’s and shift the burden of proof to them if their assets are not commensurate with their salaries. That is, they must demonstrate from where the funds were sourced for acquiring their assets.
The PPP/C and all other parties must detail how they will deal with corruption.
