Dear Editor,
WITH the PPP/C’s electoral victory and assumption of political authority and control over the apparatus of government, opposition forces appear to have miraculously discovered the need for “transparency” and “accountability.”

Previously buried in the morass of APNU’s illusionary National Front Government (NFG), current opposition forces now find it beneficial to exhume the policy of transparency and accountability from the graveyard of dark political opportunism, where they had previously interred them.

In their brazen clarion shouts to discredit the PPP/C, APNU representatives and sympathizers frequently accuse the government of lacking in transparency and accountability.
Unabashedly, they pretend as if their brand of NFG automatically meant they governed with openness that included the active engagement of citizens on issues affecting their lives — hence being transparent and accountable.

In contrast, for many Guyanese, APNU came to be symbolized as the party of Angry People Newly United (APNU) in promoting Absurd Policies Nobody Understands (APNU) which clearly demonstrated that they were Not Fit to Govern (NFG).

Undoubtedly, transparency and accountability are critical factors in good governance. Both policies play important roles in establishing and maintaining citizens trust in their government.
Simply put, while transparency fosters government openness in disclosing information to citizens voluntarily, or upon request, accountability permits the systematic evaluation of projects to ascertain achievement of desired results in accordance with funding awards/allocations.

Inextricably linked, these concepts permit auditing/evaluations of the efficiency and effectiveness of government’s policies, practices and programmes, which include contractual and non-contractual financial awards/allocations.

Over the last two years, opposition forces and sympathizers in the form of foreign and local, credentialled analysts increasingly manufactured analytical results on infrastructural/development contracts, and oil policies and prices to discredit the Government.

This practice of misrepresenting the facts/actualities clearly indicate efforts to instill doubt and suspicion in the minds of Guyanese about the PPP/C government’s policies and contractual practices.

And, with purveyors of the analytical falsehoods accusing the government of lacking in transparency and accountability, leaders of the PPP/C increasingly find themselves scrambling to refute the manufactured allegations.

Despite the government’s efforts of making available and satisfying requests for information on contractual agreements and awards, opposition forces failed to cease their accusations of the PPP/C’s lack of transparency, accountability, and impropriety. In addition, published refutations by such individuals as Joel Bhagwandin and Dr. Randolph Persaud accomplished little in deterring or blunting opposition forces production of falsified analytical results — in addition to their accusations of the government’s lack of transparency and accountability.
Clearly, the PPP/C leaders, by themselves, are unlikely to succeed in refuting every accusation of impropriety, or malfeasance, or assuaging lingering doubts in peoples’ minds about the lack of transparency and accountability.

This, coupled with Guyana’s accelerated development, and increasingly notable participation in the global economy, the government may find it worthwhile to give some consideration to the creation of an independent Office of Government Accountability (OGA), staffed by qualified accountants, policy analysts, and programme evaluators.
Conceptually, the establishment of such an office is not new. Many emerged several decades ago with reputable performances in the promotion of good governance throughout extant democratic countries around the world.

Responsible for providing government with timely fact-based information, the creation of an OGA would help facilitate PPP/C governmental decisions in efficiently and effectively allocate essential services to citizens.

While not involved in the negotiations of governmental contracts, the OGA would be responsible for monitoring the implementation of government-issued contracts to ensure compliance, efficiency, and effectiveness in accordance with the terms specified.

Among its responsibilities, the OAG would be responsible for conducting audits and evaluations of government programmes in accordance with their legislative or legally established mandates. In addition, this office would be tasked with undertaking needs-based and feasible analyses to better inform the promulgation of governmental policies.
Given its responsibilities, the OAG would be better prepared to address manufactured claims of impropriety, malfeasance, lack of transparency and accountability levelled against the government.

These it can achieve while upholding the public’s trust in their governance. Being in the forefront of providing valid information and objective reviews on which the government base policy decisions, the OAG would be the best defence against the continuous bombardment of opportunistic individuals and political groups accusing the government of lacking in transparency and accountability, while seeking to generate instability and hinder progressive changes.

Thus, I submit to the better judgement of the governing PPP/C.

Narayan Persaud, PhD.
Professor Emeritus