GOVERNMENT has, in recent times, been severely criticized; and the criticism coming from Transparency Institute Guyana has been especially scathing. A lot of this criticism has centred on the actions of Minister of State, Joseph Harmon, who has been accused of overreach; but the Government has also been criticized for its inaction on the revelations of the forensic audits.

It is quite normal for governments to be criticized, and it should be no different for this one. Critique is a vital part of the democratic process, but understandably, some Government supporters will not be happy with the criticisms. Many have contended that it is too early to be so harsh on a government which inherited a lot of baggage from the previous Government.

There is merit in that contention, but governments often become victims of their own campaigns while in Opposition. While on the Opposition benches, the parties which make up the coalition Government were quite outspoken about the excesses of the PPP. In the process, they raised the expectations of their supporters, and perhaps the country as a whole, about what they would do if they got into office. They presented themselves as a clear alternative to the PPP. It should not be surprising, then, that they are being held to a higher standard.

We feel that a year is enough time for the Government to have settled in; the argument of newness is therefore not a compelling one. There is no doubt that this Government has instituted many of its campaign promises. In some respects, Guyana is a different place from what it was a year ago. We now have new Local Government bodies; the issue of low wages has, to some extent, been addressed; the physical condition of the country has improved; and many other changes for the better have occurred.

But mistakes have been made, although maybe the critics are making too much of those mistakes. However, this should not prevent the Government from acknowledging its errors. The President has made the bold move of overruling an act of one of his Ministers. This is a very healthy development, as it shows a leader who is prepared to correct errors in a decisive manner.

The issue of taking action on the forensic audits has to be addressed one way or the other. The President has spoken repeatedly about the need to be careful on this matter, and we share that view; but the Government has also to be careful that it does not develop the reputation of reneging on its campaign promises.

It is a difficult balancing act, but it is one that must be undertaken if the Government is going to continue to be seen as a source of change.