GUYANA’s politics is fractured along the lines of ethnicity, a phenomenon which existed before independence but accentuated since independence as Guyanese fight for control of the state apparatus.

In the recent years of the PPP’s Administration, its executive office holders were least concerned about maintaining wider public trust. This was a direct result of a society where a divided electorate did not hold its government accountable.

Most people will agree that, to a large extent, Guyana’s politics is ethnically divided and the electorate does not vote on polices but on race. This has allowed the then PPP executive officer olders much leverage to evade accountability and thus became very unethical in their conduct. Good governance had no place in the post Dr Jagan PPP. Ethics refers to values manifested in a choice of action such as a decision making preference, and express a quality or a general standard of conduct. It has a certain weight in the choice of action and is most important to an individual, organisations and the wider society. It is said that morality signifies values and ethics which can be defined as a systematic reflection on morality.

In Guyana’s security sector, under the PPP/C government, a significant ethical and legal problem emerged when the then Minister with responsibility for the Security Sector allegedly created a death squad to “fight crime”. This posed serious questions about the PPP’s ethical conduct and its inclination to act outside of the law, while being the government.

Criminal gang
There are those who sought to justify the Minister’s action by using the consequential approach in ethical decision making. The core idea of consequentialism is that what makes an action right is that it brings about better consequences than any of its alternatives. Critics of consequentialism contend that the Minister did not foresee nor estimate all the possible or even probable consequences of his decision to create a death squad which became known by the popular name the “Phantom death squad”
The criminal gang unleashed deadly attacks on all ethnic groups, targeted state institutions, and developed links with the drugs underworld. This consequentialist approach to crime fighting saw the then prison escapees and their accomplices turning up dead while there were no witnesses or arrests forthcoming. The death toll of unsolved murders reached an alarming figure of over 400, including innocent women and children caught in the firing line. This period (2002-2003) is considered the bloodiest in the history of Guyana. The use of criminal gangs outside of the state’s legitimate security institutions undermined and compromised the Guyana Police Force and the Guyana Defence Force, and, consequently, the security of the citizenry. It became the era in which illegality was the order of the day.

With the Minister’s creation of the death squad, he undermined the legal mechanism responsible for addressing crimes in the interest of the common good. In the process, the state’s legitimate security institutions were sidelined and Guyana was held hostage by drugs, drug lords and criminal gangs that became the law. The PPP Administration saw the short-term consequences of this action and not the long-term effect on trust and respect for authority. In the face of mounting pressure from the opposition in parliament, the media and a large fraction of the citizenry, the Minister faced a commission of inquiry. He was reinstated to his post but amid protest from the international community. He was subsequently reshuffled and given an ambassador post in a foreign country, much to the disdain of the Guyanese populace and the International Community.

Illegal conduct
However, to this day, the PPP still faces serious questions as to their unethical and illegal conduct of selling the country’s security apparatus to criminals. Leaked telephone records show that the minister was in constant communication with the ‘phantom squad’s leaders before and after significant murders and executions. It was later discovered that he was the co-leader of the gang.

The leader of the gang who was serving time in jail for narcotics in the United States had published a full page declaration in the country’s Stabroek Newspaper, boasting of being the head of the phantom gang and claimed that he was working with the government to ‘fight crime.’ The consequences of the Minister’s action no doubt bring into question the PPP’s Government morality and commitment to maintaining law and order. The crime wave had spawned the establishment of the death squad. A Commissioner of Inquiry found ‘serious procedural irregularities in the official conduct of the Minister related to his involvement with individuals who allegedly carried out extra-judicial killings…’
The United Sates issued a statement which stated that it believed significant questions remain unanswered regarding his involvement in serious criminal activities. The USA will do well to remember this sad period in Guyanese history. Minister’s choice of action which was justified as consequential and a Machiavellian approach to deal with criminals was called into question. He acknowledged, during the Commission of Inquiry, that he was in constant contact with a top phantom squad member. He admitted saying “because he was so fed up with the police department’s incompetence that he was forced to use an outsider to gather intelligence to use in the fight of crime.”

In the public sector apparatus, the principle of democratic legitimacy supports responsiveness of public servants to policies laid down by the elected government of the day. There exists no justification then for the GPF and the GDF not to be used as the legitimate security apparatus to deal with crime. There can be no legal justification for the creation of a “death squad” to function as the state’s security institution.

Security of the state
It can be said that democratic legitimacy is sometimes expressed in terms of the elected government’s right to determine public interest in relation to the substance of government policy. The PPP government of the day public interest should have been the security of the state, and the democratic responsibility of the minister was to institute polices for the safety of the population using state institutions. How could it be ethical, or more so legal, to institute a criminal network for the governance of the security sector? And do such actions not undermine an impartial Guyana Police Force and Guyana Defence Force in their function of the security of the state? Governments, in an attempt to legitimize public confidence amidst the perception that legislators are not people who command widespread trust, have been instituting parliamentary ethics to build their integrity. It must be pointed out that, during the PPP’s Administration, the Guyana parliamentary code of conduct for ministers and parliamentary members was in draft for time immoral and was only signed off when President David Granger’s Administration took Office in 2015.

Ethnic conflict
The ethnic conflict in Guyana is exacerbated by political conditions as evident in the aftermath of national elections, where the defeated political leaders swear to undermine the state and the government administration. Guyana must not return to that era of criminal control of the state apparatus. We must not return to an administration which sold the state security apparatus to criminal elements. Lest we forget, do we even need to question the security structure and policies of our nation now? Guyana has blossomed under a credible administration of law and order and shall continue in this vein. Guyana has become more democratic in the last five years. Law and order have prevailed and Guyanese have spoken; we want to continue in this vein. Yes, we will, for our greatest asset – our future generations to sustain Guyana’s developmental agenda – prosperity for all!