THE Foreign Service has a responsibility to advance the programmes of the government among its citizens in the diaspora, and ensure government’s policies are understood and respected by host governments. The position advanced by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) Member of Parliament and Opposition Whip Ms. Gail Teixeira in the National Assembly that the David Granger/Moses Nagamootoo government must honour the contracts the Donald Ramotar government had issued to political appointees in the Foreign Service is deserving of attention.It is interesting to note that the opposition that is calling on the government to honour the contracts of persons whom they had appointed while in government did the opposite when the party succeeded the Desmond Hoyte government. The contracts of political appointees and career public servants who served at various missions during the Hoyte administration were not honoured by the PPP/C government.
Recognising that the PPP/C had the experience where legal battles ensued, it would be reasonable to think that the Donald Ramotar government would have put systems in place not to saddle a successor government with its indiscretion. In addition to the Ramotar government giving their supporters contracts that encompass super salaries and benefits, these are written in such a way that if the government does not have the money to pay to sever the relationship, it will be saddled with these political appointees remaining in office working for the PPP/C.
Every political party that assumed the responsibility of government is entitled to free rein to develop its Foreign Policy and Agenda. After all, the party campaigned and secured office on a proposed programme and the people expect execution. This is a universal practice and respected in international circles. It ought to be no different for Guyana. It should be said that there exists a difference between a career diplomat and a political appointee. The political appointee is appointed specifically by the government of the day. The career public servant is appointed through constitutional commission. In the instance of the former his/her allegiance is not only to the government that made the appointment, but also to the political party that forms the government.
The APNU+AFC government has made it clear that its Foreign Policy will be one of Economic Diplomacy. In recognition of this position the administration must be given a free hand in identifying and appointing heads of mission it deems capable of carrying out its mandate in the international arena. To have an individual whose allegiance is to the opposition political party continue in office can contribute to undermining of the incumbent’s programmes through misrepresentation to host governments and members of the diaspora.
The utterance of Ms Teixeira is one of concern, given that it constitutes political bullyism. While in government the PPP/C enjoyed the right to appoint persons of their choice to staff the foreign missions. In opposition, PPP/C is engaging in acts to deny an incumbent government what is universally practised and accepted. The apparent threat that the government would be taken to court should it take action to remove political appointees brings into question whether this matter is one of upholding the laws or using contracts to retain political friends with the intention of undermining the government.
The contracted officers who are demanding that they remain on the job even though there is a change of government brings into focus the issue of morality/ethics. Morality/ethics dictate that from the moment a new government has been put in place, these officers should have offered their resignations instead of seeking ways through threats to retain their positions or benefit financially.
Contrary to Ms. Teixeira’s view, this matter is not about law and honouring of contracts. This matter is about scape-goating the law to mask political bullysim and the refusal to give the government its deserving free hand to chart and execute its Foreign Policy and Agenda. Unfortunately, the political appointees in engaging in such unethical conduct are communicating to all and sundry that their actions are intended to undermine the government and use the State coffers for personal enrichment.