Guyana has slipped further down the Transparency International (TI) Corrup-tion Perception Index (CPI) after scoring an unflattering 27 out of 100 points following its assessment for this year.

The country’s ranking of 136 from a list of 177 countries was announced by the Transparency Institute of Guyana Inc (TIGI) yesterday at the Pegasus Hotel, where it was also revealed that Guyana placed 28th out of the 32 countries in the Americas and is the worst performer for all Caribbean countries with the exception of Haiti.

By contrast, Barbados scored 75 points, the highest in Caricom; The Bahamas 71; St Lucia 71; Trinidad and Tobago 38; and Jamaica 38. Suriname came in at 36 this year. It is against this backdrop that Guyana’s score of 27 is realised as worrying. And, Guyana’s poor performance this year is further compounded by the fact that the country has actually attained a worse result that what was accorded for 2012, when it scored 28 and was 133 out of 176 countries surveyed.

The methodology used by TI ranks countries from 1 to 100 after measuring perceived levels of public sector corruption. A score of 100 is reflective of the lowest perception of corruption.

Anand Goolsarran

Commenting on the results yesterday, chartered accountant and financial analyst Christopher Ram told Stabroek News that the results are disappointing but that he doubted that anyone will be surprised considering the many revelations of corruption made by politicians and other civil society members.

“You can’t blame the people for believing that corruption exists,” Ram said, while nothing that there are probably persons in Guyana who do not perceive a high rate of corruption, or are at least defensive on the matter.

He also said that the drop from 28 to 27 might not seem significant but argued that “any downward movement is very bad when your numbers are already low.” Guyana’s situation is cast in an even bleaker light as TI, in its report, says that any score of less than 50 indicates that a country is facing serious corruption problems. Guyana shares its score of 27 with Bangladesh, Kenya, and the Ivory Coast.

 Implications of poor score

President of TIGI Anand Goolsarran yesterday said that Guyana’s scores can bring several negative implications. Many reputable international business and other establishments, he said, have confidence in the numbers produced by TI and therefore use these indicators to determine where to invest and where to avoid investing, since operating in a corruption-wrought state can prove to be costly.

Goolsarran, a former Auditor General, also said that citizens, in their attempt to flee a state they perceive to be riddled with corruption, may migrate. “There is therefore brain-drain with the concomitant spiralling effect of not having the relevant skills to effectively manage the operations of a government. In short, high levels of corruption result in the perpetuation of weak governments,” Goolsarran said.

Alliance for Change (AFC) leader Khemraj Ramjattan, who attended the announcement yesterday, noted that high levels of corruption may also attract “non-reputable companies.” TIGI Vice President Frederick Collins affirmed Ramjattan’s point and noted that several companies have been known to bribe their way into winning contracts to conduct projects in various countries. The same thing is liable to happen here, he said, unless actions are taken against corruption.

How did we do worse?

Ram thinks that the perception of corruption in Guyana has not improved because the political will necessary to make needed changes does not exist or has not been demonstrated. The government, he said, has done little more than admit that corruption exists in Guyana.

Meanwhile, “many of the constitutionally required institutions that can impact on corruption are weakened or do not exist,” Ram told Stabroek News. The Public Procurement Commission (PPC), which has been the topic of much debate as of late, the Ombudsman’s Office, the Integrity Commission, the Whistleblower Legislation and the Access to Information Act are all either non-existent or not fully constituted.

In relation to the Integrity Commission, Goolsarran said that public officials continue to submit their returns to the commission even though it is not functioning and he said that this makes absolutely no sense. This view, he said, was expressed to the representatives from the Organisation of American States when they visited Guyana earlier this year to hear from stakeholders in various matters.

The Attorney General’s Office, he said, which is also supposed to work in the favour of the people in Guyana, cannot be taken seriously.

 Mitigating corruption

If corruption is to be prevented, Goolsarran said, Guyana must adhere to four principles. The first is referred to as the arms-length principle which demands that decision are made on merit rather on the basis of personal and other relations. “There should be no room for nepotism, fovouritism and cronyism.

The second principle, “citizens’ participation and involvement in public decision making,” will ensure that there is collective responsibility for actions taken, Goolsarran says. He believes that such a provision will minimise the perception that corruption is taking place. The final two principles require free and independent media to accompany transparent decision-making, and limitations on the use of discretionary powers.

But, just how reliable are the figures produced by TI?

Ram is of the opinion that the information released by the organisation in relation to Guyana, is valid and reliable because it was constructed from the reports of surveys carried out in Guyana by four reputable independent bodies: the World Bank (WB), the World Economic Forum, the International Country Guide, and the Global Insight Country Risk Ratings.

Explaining the processes followed by these bodies when carrying out their surveys, Goolsarran said that they frame questions; decide on sample sizes big enough to reflect the perception of the population, and use a combination of questionnaires and face to face interviews to arrive at their figures.

He said that members of the business community, general members of the public and government officials are also interviewed in an effort to generate society’s perception of corruption in Guyana. TIGI is not at all involved in the generation of the index, Goolsarran explained.

Transparency International is a global civil society organisation devoted to fighting corruption. Although the organisation defends its index, it concedes that the findings are not absolute.

“There is no meaningful way to assess absolute levels of corruption on the basis of hard empirical data. Possible attempts to do so, such as by comparing bribes reported, the number of prosecutions brought, or studying court cases directly linked to corruption, cannot be taken as definitive indicators of corruption levels. Instead, they show how effective prosecutors, the courts, or the media are in investigating and exposing corruption. Capturing perceptions of corruption of those in a position to offer assessments of public sector corruption is the most reliable method of comparing relative corruption levels across countries. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide that guides investors, lending institutions and other interested parties in their dealings with individual countries,” TI says on its website.

No matter how it is parsed or spun, APNU’s deal-making last week with the PPP/C government will be seen as a continuation of the historic engagement of the duopoly that has bestridden the political landscape for the last 55 years or so and which has left the country wallowing in the backwaters of development and deeply divided.

In respect of the expectations of the  AFC, many blunt descriptions can be applied to the nature of APNU’s foray into the Office of the President when certain commitments were given and it seems that the glimmers of a deal for the passage of the 2012 budget developed. If APNU wanted its mission to OP to be described as honourable and statesman-like then it required at least a modicum of courtesy to the AFC; perhaps a discussion of what should be broached with President Ramotar or the inclusion of an AFC representative. There was inexplicably none of this. Worse, APNU appeared to want to keep this meeting a secret for as long as possible. Did APNU’s Head, Mr David Granger go to OP with his APNU cap on or as Opposition Leader? Neither capacity justifies the exclusion of the AFC. Mr Granger would no doubt understand that wherever he goes these days he is first and foremost the Leader of the Opposition and that entails representing not only the views of APNU MPs but the AFC’s MPs. In a consultative democracy representation requires consultation at the minimum with the various groups, in this case, the AFC and the constituents of APNU.  APNU’s shutting out of the AFC is just as crass as the government’s disdain for the opposition parties in the 9th Parliament.

APNU undoubtedly has complete freedom of action but its constituency would no doubt counsel that this freedom be exercised wisely, judiciously and honourably. For the first time since 1992, the opposition has been gifted – via the elections results – with the opportunity to hold the blatant excesses of PPP/Civic governance in check. The clearest and most uncomplicated way for that to be accomplished is by means of a common agenda subscribed to by the two opposition parties and then presented to the government for mature discussion. The clearest and most viable mechanism through which this joint programme could be achieved is the expressing of the 33 opposition votes in Parliament as compared to the government’s 32. Reducing this equation to 33, 26 and seven is pure senselessness.

Just months after the elections, APNU has managed to undermine whatever solidarity existed with the AFC and it now has a lot of repair work to do.  Further, it has `tied bundle’ with a notoriously untrustworthy dialogue partner in the PPP/C whose recalcitrance, prevarication and backsliding have been well established particularly in the last decade. The failed Jagdeo-Hoyte and the Jagdeo-Corbin talks are a stark testament to the failure of our politicians at the highest levels. What happens if these talks between APNU and the government fall apart? Wouldn’t APNU have to recombine its 26 with the AFC’s seven? What sense does the separation at this early point make at all except if there was a larger deal on the table e.g. a government of national unity as APNU wants but even then the AFC would still have to be involved? Whatever epiphany APNU conjured up of the Ramotar administration, it has embarked upon a course that will lead to harsh judgements from its constituency and other stakeholders if expected radical reforms aren’t evident in reasonable time. The majority which voted against the PPP/C’s record would have done so for many reasons foremost among which would have been the twisted governance, corruption, shady deals, a stagnant economy and the enriching of a select few while poverty remains insidious in parts of the country.

No doubt APNU’s engagement with the government could lead to the passage of the 2012 budget. That would be a positive development for the country but would it be a budget shorn of the wastage, unaffordable employment contracts and ill-advised deals? This was what the AFC appeared to be trying to do by seeking cuts of the budgets of various ministries. These proposed cuts appeared to have given APNU cold feet after the engineered protest in the vicinity of Parliament or there might have been  some other factor that drove the meeting earlier in the day between APNU and the government. It must be said that the government and its ministers engaged in the most shameless exaggeration and scaremongering about the planned cuts, intimidating public servants into protests. The AFC initiative was clearly not targeting the humble cleaners, drivers and messengers and those qualified to earn what they are earning. It was targeting the questionable contracts of several dozen contract employees who have been conveniently hidden among other contract employees precisely to avoid exposure.  APNU, however, cut the AFC initiative off at the knees even though it was reported to have given tacit approval the day before.

No one is suggesting that the opposition holds the government to ransom over the budget but by the same token the opposition should by all means use the instruments available to it in the budget approval process to achieve its objectives. The consideration of the estimates provides for this exactly and this is the point at which APNU and the AFC should have trimmed wherever it was deemed necessary. APNU has clearly lost the plot.

As to the deals reached so far, APNU has already trumpeted a commitment from the government to hike old-age pensions from $8,100 per month to $10,000. This is commendable but came only after the government had offered a measly $600 increase on $7,500. What sort of government offers an increase of $600 to the impecunious and then more than triples that figure as an inducement for political support? It is the same type of cynical governance that APNU and the AFC should be trying to rein in.

There is already great discord over what was reputedly agreed in relation to electricity tariffs for Linden. Prime Minister Hinds and Mr Granger have differed already over whether tariffs will go up in July. The increase in tariffs has also been linked to three issues: the age-old dust nuisance, more small loans financing via the Linden Enterprise Network and access to more television. This was quite hare-brained negotiating by APNU as the government had already been under immense pressure to deliver all three of these and would have had to. Surely APNU should have sought some other concession.

Further, by agreeing with the government that television service would be expanded in Linden, APNU and the Leader of the Opposition have wittingly or unwittingly given the green light to the radio licences hurriedly and improperly assigned by former President Jagdeo last year. It had been sensibly argued that the opposition should bless no change to the broadcasting spectrum until a new and independent  broadcast authority is in place and this authority would then make the decisions. The government can now properly argue that APNU has agreed to the Linden television expansion under the same framework that former President Jagdeo operated under last year.

APNU and the government may well continue this engagement but the real test will be when the really serious questions arise. Was Mr Henry Greene’s departure one of the outputs of this engagement? If so, it is another public relations disaster for APNU as he has completely escaped any accountability for his abuse of office. What is APNU’s view on this? What will happen when the former president’s benefits Acts comes up for review in parliament? Will an APNU MP mysteriously miss that session of Parliament or will all of APNU backtrack? What of this long-talked about probe of the Roger Khan era, CLICO, the Skeldon factory fiasco, the public procurement commission and myriad other issues? What of the reforms of GECOM?

APNU, its member groups and its members clearly have much pondering to do before they go farther down this road.