IN an interview with the Department of Public Information that was aired on state television and radio, the National Communications Network (NCN), Vice-President Khemraj Ramjattan admitted that his government has made mistakes, some of which could have been avoided.He attributed some of the mistakes to what a former, Trinidadian Trade Minister years ago had ascribed to the then young Guyanese President Bharrat Jagdeo, as “newness.”

While in opposition, one of the major concerns of the coalition of parties which now make up the government was the lack of transparency and accountability of the then government. Indeed, this complaint became one of the central planks of the coalition’s election platform in 2011 and 2015. Ironically, since coming to power, the tables have turned—it is the former governing party which has been pummelling the government on this matter. The ease with which the accused becomes the accuser is remarkable. This suggests that there may be something in the political culture that goes beyond the political parties which leaves all governments open to this charge.

Transparency and accountability are key components of democratic government, while oversight of government is an equally central plank of that process. There is often between those two democratic principles as governments by their very nature to tend to be disinclined to be voluntarily transparent and accountable. They often hide behind the need to protect national security, but while the protection of national security is important enough, it should not be carried out at the expense of transparency and accountability. In other words, the most effective government is one which is able to balance those two imperatives.

In Guyana, there has historically been a clash between those who insist on government accountability and those who hold the reins of government—we have never been able to find a middle ground, if there is one to be found. On the one hand, scrutiny of government is an important aspect of the democratic process as it theoretically serves to make government much more aware of the need to be transparent and accountable. On the other hand, it could bring out the worst in government as those in charge may view scrutiny as anti-government and as a form of destabilisation which could lead to less transparency and accountability.

After 18 months in office, it could be said without any contradiction that the “honeymoon” period for the Coalition Government is over, or it ought to be something of the past. It would not be unreasonable to say that any new snafu or foul-up, however small or unintentional, would not be treated by the average Guyanese citizen as a mistake but as a tragedy.

It would be a tragedy in the sense that the bigger picture of Guyana developing as a structured, orderly and law-governed society, which is the hallmark of this administration, is lost in periodic episodes of mini-scandals such as those ignited by the Sussex Street drugs bond and the D’Urban Park project. These attracted adverse publicity, and have been milked in opposition quarters and viewed with cynicism even by some who could have been friends of the new government.

The bigger picture is that the economy has been kept afloat in spite of heavy blows to the major sugar and rice sectors; major public infrastructural works have been sustained and the foundations for renewable energy are being laid. On the social side, financial allocations for education, health and housing have been boosted, and minimum wages and monthly salaries for state employees have been increased.

In the new year it is hoped that the Coalition Government would recover some lost ground by rolling out initiatives that would help to stimulate confidence amongst the people, invite greater participation by civil society in community life and rekindle the pride that was evident when the Coalition took office. It is not too much to ask.