Last week, the nation woke up to another outburst by President Irfaan Ali. This time it was that 5 a.m. meeting with ministers, permanent secretaries and contractors. It was a public spectacle beyond good sense and reasoning from the highest office holder of the land. Notwithstanding the effort of the Vice President, Bharrat Jagdeo, at his most recent press conference to “save face”, the damage had already been done. That tirade demonstrated a crisis in government and governance, in Guyana.
Whilst there is certainly merit in holding public officials accountable for delays and subpar performance, the President’s approach raised serious concerns. In fact, rather than fostering a climate of accountability, his public belittling of his own team—those entrusted with the management of critical public works—has done little to help the image or credibility of the incumbent authoritarian regime.
Instead, it has deepened concerns about his management style and the woeful state of governance in Guyana, particularly as the country is experiencing an unprecedented economic boom, but one that has yet to be matched by the expected improvements in infrastructure, public and associated services. There is a saying the fish rots from its head and the rotting was on full display for the world to see.
Let us consider a few of the fallouts of that dawn meeting:
First, public shaming of high-ranking officials and contractors not only undermines the morale of those individuals but also presents an image of an incompetent government, and shows a President unable to effectively and efficiently manage his own team. If senior personnel in the administration are seen publicly chastising each other, it suggests a lack of cohesion, direction, and leadership.
For a government to function effectively, especially during a time of rapid growth and transformation, the systems must properly work. Clearly, there seems to be a problem among the ranks and generals of this regime. Apparently, some ministers, permanent secretaries and party members/contractors see themselves as little Caesars pursuing personal economic and other interests.
Again, the President use of public forums to call out delays, shows the ineffectiveness of the administration as a whole. It raises certain basic questions about internal coordination, planning, and oversight. Why were these delays not addressed internally before they reached the point of public humiliation? And more importantly, why are these recurring issues not being solved in a more strategic and less immature manner?
Such pretense of frustration by the President not only undermine the inherent credibility and maturity associated with the office, but risk alienating the very people needed to deliver vital services to the people. Contractors, for example, are critical to the execution of major infrastructure projects, and the public pretense at rage, without offering constructive solutions or acknowledging the broader challenges they face—be it in terms of logistical constraints, budgetary issues, or labour shortages—creates an environment of fear and resentment.
It is a known fact that successful project execution requires a strong working relationship between the public and private sectors. The President’s outburst could hurt, rather than help, the goal of getting state contracts delivered on time and on budget.
Also, President Ali’s remarks come at a crucial moment in Guyana’s development. The country is experiencing a historic oil boom, with revenues flowing into the public purse at unprecedented rates. However, the true test for the government lies in how these funds are being managed and how swiftly they translate into tangible benefits for the population.
At the moment there is clear evidence that revenue form the oil reserves are terribly mismanaged by the incumbent government. Guyanese are left in the dark as to how oil revenues are spent by the government. From the looks of it, there appears to be much wastage due to improper planning and lack of standard operational procedures and protocols.
Highways recently constructed are already showing visible signs of fatigue and stress. Some contracts awarded to incompetent want-to-be contractors are yet to even begin although, in some cases, substantial sums were already paid to those contractors. What a shame!
Infrastructure projects, healthcare, education, and social services need to improve rapidly to keep pace with the growing economy. And yet, delays in state contracts and the inefficiencies in governance that these delays reflect are exactly the type of issue that could derail public anticipation of a prosperous future.
I am putting it to this nation that, in reality, the real problem lies in the government’s known disability to be truly democratic and inclusive, to facilitate proper and appropriate consultations, and to allow technically competent individuals, whose views may not align with that of the government’s discriminatory and lopsided policies and actions, to be involved and participate in plans and projects aimed at national development.
The public’s faith in the government hinges on its ability to deliver results—not just in words but through visible, on-the-ground achievements. And yet, what we are seeing is a government grappling with internal dysfunctions that, far from being acknowledged and addressed through constructive dialogue, are aired in a way that confirms their inability to govern properly.
Instead of publicly demeaning ministers, permanent secretaries, and contractors, the President should be using these moments to reflect on the broader system issues that may be contributing to delays. One such issue is inadequate planning.
Another one is large state contracts are given to individuals and companies that have no experience, competence or capacity to execute those contracts. What then does the president expects? Then there are questions about the pace and efficiency of procurement processes, and lack of capacity within ministries to handle the scale of projects now being undertaken.
In a system where political loyalty often supersedes technical competence, the President must take full responsibility for the continuous crisis in governance. Leadership requires addressing systemic issues rather than merely pointing fingers.
By all means, the government must hold those responsible for delays accountable—but it can do so by allowing the systems of government to work, independent of political interference which has created a toxic atmosphere that poisons relationships and undermines efforts to drive national development.
Public figures are always held to a higher standard of conduct, and as such, President Ali should be ashamed of his performance on Tuesday, November 12, 2024. As such the President is being advised to engage in introspection, and accept that he is incapable of changing the image of a regime that has demonstrated and continue to demonstrate very high levels of corruption, particularly in the infrastructure department of the government. “The fish rots from the head.”