Political loyalty and accountability

Dear Editor,
Many important lessons have emerged from the American election of 11/6/2024. Among them is that sectional interest is no longer an important determinant of voting behaviour; rather, ‘common sense’ issues that cut across boundaries of race, income groups, geography, gender, and social standing are what appeal to voters/citizens.
For Americans, abstract political rhetoric, ideology, and name-calling are repulsive; what are critical are pocket-book issues (grocery prices, gasoline price, housing cost, transport cost, jobs, and utility cost), as well as an open southern border that leads to an overspill of undocumented immigrants, which wreaks havoc in several American cities. In addition, Americans are pleased that social security and “Tip” income would not be taxed in the future.
Another powerful feature that emerged post-election is the significance of loyalty in party politics. Loyalty is an important force in the naming of President-elect Donald Trump’s cabinet. For the position of Attorney General, for example, Mr. Trump nominated Matt Geetz, a loyalist, despite his having some ethical issues as a congressperson.
In Guyana, many observers believe the PPPC leadership appointed loyalists to cabinet posts. While the appointees might be loyal to the Party, they are also qualified to function in their respective portfolios.
This issue of loyalty in politics goes back to the 1960s, when Mr. LFS Burnham responded to a question: “Do you expect me to hire people who will sabotage my government?” Mr. Balram Singh Rai, a powerful and loyal force (Deputy Chairman) of the PPP, was first expelled from the PPP because he accused the Jagans of tampering with the internal party election, and was subsequently removed as Home Affairs Minister in June 1962.
The loyalty factor has become a persistent one in determining cabinet and other positions. The underlying assumption is that loyalty is the foundation upon which trust is built, and this would ensure that Government policies and programmes are not sabotaged. Herein lies a dilemma. When a loyalist runs afoul of the law, or breaks basic ethical standards, how does the leadership respond? Guyanese history has shown that, in such situations, ambivalence tends to prevail. When a top PPPC loyalist, for example, was singled out for corruption, she was not relieved of her position, but was transferred to another ministry. However, more evidence surfaced, and she was forced to step down.
There was the other case of a former PPPC minister who was accused of sexual misconduct, and when the evidence began to mount, combined with public outcry, he had to step down. His case was dropped, and because of his loyalty and hard work, he was assigned to do party work.
A comparable situation of ambivalence happened when a former APNU+AFC minister was accused of accepting illicit gifts (gold bangles), but the leadership did not ask him to resign; rather, he continued in that position. And while in opposition, he allegedly urinated in an open public place. Despite that obscene act and prior accusation of corruption, he was not admonished. In fact, he has risen to a top executive position in the AFC.
When Eusi Kwayana brought charges of corruption against the Elder and another PNC minister, Mr David Singh, the later was found guilty but the Elder was exonerated. He was a loyalist to the PNC and to its leader, and was later rewarded with a hefty annual pension ($20.6 million + $3.1 million annually in benefits, +2 state vehicles + 2 first-class airfares annually). The pension was to cover the period 1985 to 1992, when he served as Prime Minister but received remuneration as a President.
Both the human rights group (GHRA) and the TIGI launched a trenchant criticism against the pension and other benefits, and asked the APNU+AFC government to withdraw the Pension Bill 2015.
With reference to Mr David Singh, he was found guilty by the Ombudsman and was removed as a minister, but rewarded instead with an Ambassadorial position in China.
The dilemma of leadership is clearly illustrated by these and other cases. A basic component of loyalty is trust, and when trust is solidified, it becomes an essential quality of good governance. Loyalty must exist in a symbiotic relationship with accountability.
Historical experience has shown that the link between loyalty and accountability has been weak. Leaders must therefore ensure that loyalty to policies and programmes be combined with accountability. In this way, leaders would become more decisive, and less ambivalent over breaches committed by their colleagues and followers.

Sincerely,
Dr Tara Singh