The disaster of the MV Barima will live on in the Guyanese consciousness for a long time. But leaving aside the enormity of the human tragedy which occurred when the vessel capsized, the fact cannot be avoided that with its sinking the malfunctioning of the state was glaringly exposed. And this was not an isolated occurrence in terms of governance; this was symptomatic of a more deep-rooted problem affecting the systems which underpin the operations of the state.
The government preens itself on its management of the new oil economy, its investment in shiny infrastructure, and the phenomenal economic growth the country has experienced, but this is just the patina which masks a less rosy reality. Beneath the veneer inadequate, ill-monitored and sometimes corrupt systems still operate in the same incompetent way they have been doing for decades.
This has now been brought into the open in a most dramatic and harrowing fashion. And this time there are so many agencies associated with the disaster in addition to central government itself, that there will be no escaping the reality.
Our party structure, particularly as it applies to the PPP, is not at present geared to run a complex modern state. Our local world has become overly politicised, so nothing and no one is seen as neutral or objective. Anyone not with the party in office is deemed to be against it, and consequently loyalty, not competence becomes the primary criterion for appointment in any post involving state remuneration.
The current governing party in addition has a very narrow concept of democracy, confining it to the matter of national and local government elections. Once elected it believes it has the right of total control and resists the norms of democratic practice. This attitude affects the functioning of Parliament and militates against the independence of what are supposed to be autonomous institutions.
Even if there has been no direct political interference in a department, government employees function with half an eye on the political masters, and evince a reluctance to take any decisions let alone initiative in case there are personal repercussions. It is a formula which is anathema to efficiency. Furthermore, there is a resistance to listening to any views emanating from outside the perimeter of the party.
All of this inevitably involves too a lack of accountability, so legislation may be in place, and regulations may be in place, as they were for the most part in the case of the Barima, but there is no great impetus to ensure they are enforced, because usually there are no consequences if they are not. Efficiency for its own sake is not the watchword of the government because it assumes that once it has control that will look after itself. The incredible lapses in the administration of Transport and Harbours, for instance, would have soon become embedded in the absence of an effective monitoring and inspection system and a failure to apply sanctions when the rules were not enforced.
It is not that government is not forced to recognise sometimes in a perfunctory way that things are not working as they should. The myriad shortcomings in relation to the building of new infrastructure for instance caused President Ali in his first term to summon various interested parties at an unearthly hour in the morning and lecture them. It did no good of course, because at the bottom of that particular problem is a defective and corrupt procurement system, which has still not been addressed. The public waits to hear why after four years the Port Kaituma wharf is not yet finished, so the new boat which was intended to replace the Barima could not be put into service because it could not dock there.
As it is the government does not want to be held accountable and this can be illustrated in myriad ways such as its treatment of the Public Accounts Committee or the lack of whistleblower legislation. This lack of accountability inevitably involves too a lack of transparency and an abnormal sensitivity to criticism, even when that has obvious justification.
This was demonstrated in the case of the dormitory fire at Mahdia. A great deal of emphasis was placed on the perpetrator of the fire, but not on the failure of the state agencies and ministry whose negligence played a role in the loss of life. Certainly the agent had to take responsibility for her actions, but the government did its best to avoid liability for the serious failings of its agencies which meant that even after the fire was set there was no escape for 20 of the children.
But this is the problem with the Freedom House obsession. In their world, appearances are everything, and in an effort to maintain these the governing party attempts to control the narrative. In this instance the odds are all against them, but still they try to restrict the independent media from access to information about the disaster.
As we have reported they were not allowed past the barricades erected by police around the Charity waterfront, although the state media were. In addition, survivors were said to have been discouraged from speaking publicly about their experiences. As the independent media moved up the Pomeroon river, they were told by residents that police patrols were searching for those who had earlier been denied access to the waterfront area, and not long after an officer spotted a boat transporting journalists and appeared to record them on his phone.
In addition, our reporter was removed from the Essequibo Technical Institute where survivors were being temporarily accommodated. She was excluded on the instructions of Minister of Health Frank Anthony who was speaking to them. The government-aligned News Room, however, was allowed to remain. She was then removed from the compound by two female police officers, one of whom she heard on her cellphone saying, “the problem has been taken care of.”
On Sunday, another of our reporters was ordered out of the Umana Yana where the families of victims had gathered, although again, NCN and DPI were allowed to stay. This time it was Mr Kwame McCoy accompanied by police ranks who told both Kiskadee Watch and Kaieteur News that they were not allowed to remain.
In the end, because the governing party does not want to be held accountable, because it does not want to reveal the reality and because it is driven by a need to protect itself from any such revelation, it falls back on the only thing it knows how to do: manage the narrative. To do that, it must silence independent voices. This time, however, the story is too big and has already got away from it. It should be an opportunity for it to learn about effective governance and efficient systems, not try and hide the truth.
Perhaps it is worth comparing the actions of the Government of Guyana with those of the Government of St Lucia. That island experienced a boat collision on the same day the Barima went down, leading to the loss of life of at least two St Lucians.
The Prime Minister there has already announced that a Commission of Inquiry would be appointed which would be chaired by a former high-ranking member of the judiciary and include experts in maritime operation and marine safety, as well as a police inspector.
Various NGOs and individuals here have been calling for a Commission of Inquiry, while in a motion the joint opposition (excluding APNU which issued a separate motion) called for a marine safety investigation separate from any criminal investigation, disciplinary proceedings, civil proceedings or Commission of Inquiry. Whatever is finally established, it (or they) must be credible as far as the public is concerned; there can be no glossing over the enormity of the failures which caused the worst ferry disaster in this country in living memory.
Which brings us to the last comment about the political culture here, and that is the PPP tradition to protect as far as is possible its senior figures or those associated with it. If they give undivided loyalty, the party will reciprocate by being loyal to them. That said, the first thing which would amaze any regular democracy would be the fact that Minister Edghill has not seen fit to resign yet. It is illustrative of the fact that no one at ministerial level is required to take personal responsibility.
He should reassess his position, however, because if he doesn’t choose to go he will eventually be forced to do so, no matter what the party wants.
Discussion