President Jagdeo's appointments
By Festus L. Brotherson, Jr.
PRESIDENT Jagdeo's first stab at administrative appointments has produced mainly silence - not much criticism and not much praise. What this suggests is that people's expectations of deep changes of significance were not high. More positively, it also suggests that the president's personal integrity remains solidly intact and that Guyanese across ethnic, class and other divides continue to give him wide latitude in an extended honeymoon period of his stewardship. This comes in the wake of Mr. Jagdeo's indefatigable efforts not only to consolidate his power, but also to rekindle confidence in the PPP/Civic government's ability to achieve widespread beneficial results from development efforts. Although the appointments on November 19, 1999, raised no wide eyebrows, some positive things the effort signaled should not be overlooked. The emphasis on new appointments of permanent secretaries reflects keen understanding of sensitivities that must be accommodated positively in Guyanese politics. Apart from traditional ones like competence and loyalty, they include ethnicity, trade unionism and youth. Ethnic sensitivity is usually the most apparent for its presence or absence. On this occasion, it was very visible in the cabinet and permanent secretary appointments. The most interesting appointment is that of 35-year-old Ms. Jennifer Webster as Permanent Secretary in the Office of the President. It combines competence, ethnicity and youth in complementary ways. It also means that the two topmost administrative positions in the Office of the President are held by Guyanese of African descent. The other position is Head of the Presidential Secretariat held by Dr. Roger Luncheon. Stabroek News commented on the appointments positively, but called for a more dramatic effort with the cabinet. That call is a bit off the mark. It does not consider how a major reshuffle in troubled Third World states is difficult. Careful attention has to be paid to appearances, competence, loyalty, power alignments and, importantly, timing. Often, paying attention to one of these factors can exact negative costs on another as in loyalty over competence and vice versa. Any misstep can dwarf good intent and revive polarised politics. Two examples stand out - Ethiopia for brutality in a revolution and India for dexterous cunning in the world's largest democracy. In 1977, socialist Ethiopia, irreconcilable policy differences between equipoised factions during a special meeting of the Derg (ruling military committee) led to a shoot-out on the palace grounds outside the meeting room. Dictator Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam emerged the undisputed victor from this opportunity for a `permanent reshuffle.' Using a machine gun, he massacred several powerful opponents. Thus, he permanently silenced colleagues whose behavior and performance had been irksome and, in his view, sub-par for four years after the seizure of power from King Haile Selassie. Rene Lefort recounts this amazing event in his book `Ethiopia: An Heretical Revolution?' In India, during the 1960s, 70s and early 80s, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was subtler in her reshuffling moves. Her first effort in 1966, the year in which she came to power, was tame given her weak status among power brokers in the ruling Congress Party, her inexperience, her continuing efforts to consolidate power, the weakness of the Indian economy, and rising tensions over religion and languages. The reshuffle was so mild that silence about it was deafening. The prime minister's limited strategy in 1966 was to appoint more Ministers of State than any previous administration, groom them as loyalists and elevate their importance in administrative hierarchy. But after victory in 1967 general elections, though still weak compared to legends in the party syndicate, Mrs. Gandhi developed other strategies for effective reshuffling so masterfully that she is credited with changing cabinet relations in Indian and wider Third World parliamentary democracies from one where the prime minister's status was one of `primus inter pares' (first among equals) to one of `primus, semper primus.' (first, always first). The tactics that served her consolidation of power strategy included reaching out to the lowest group in India's Caste system, i.e., the untouchables, and to the minority Muslim community. In effect, she went outside her Congress Party to build independent bases of support. A Muslim won the Indian presidency with her strong backing and one `untouchable' became an inevitable staple in cabinet appointments. She also developed a powerful `kitchen cabinet' of loyalists, and together, they crafted policies for cabinet approval which was usually granted. Wilier yet was her tactic of making adversarial appointments to the cabinet. She would appoint persons who were known foes of one another to opposite positions they desired. The result was their shrewd loyalty to Mrs. Gandhi. The ministers feuded among themselves, had little time to undermine the prime minister and often were forced to appeal to her for resolution of conflicts. Given all of the preceding and the very challenging governance demands in Guyana, President Jagdeo is surely on the right track. He is combining democratic values of coalition-building and compromise to serve the nation better. As Aristotle reminded, "and the good law-giver and true statesman must have their eyes open not only to what is the absolute best, but also to what is the best in relation to actual conditions."
|