WHO IS THE BEST?
February 13, 2015 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source - Kaieteur News
How do we know that Forbes Burnham surrounded himself with the best? Just how does one determine that those who Burnham chose to be ministers of his government were the best available? How can we be sure that very choice was the ideal choice when there were no other candidates?
Were they the best because they were lettered? There were many other highly qualified persons who Burnham did not choose, many others he bypassed. How do we know that these persons would not have been better choices than the persons Burnham settled for?
In his latter years, Burnham chopped and changed his Cabinet, appointing all manner of unlettered persons. How can we say that these were also not the best choices? We cannot, because we do not know how someone else would have functioned.
What is clear is that Burnham left this country in tatters, and if this is because he chose the best, then give me the worst. We cannot say that Burnham chose the best. We cannot because we do not know that.
What we can do is critically assess the performance of those who worked with Burnham, and this is something that should be done rather than simply saying that Burnham chose the best. And yet we find as you go through the list that there are just as many grounds to be critical of these persons as there are to praise them.
Those who Burnham chose got exposure to working at the highest levels of government and thus got opportunities that others did not have. How do we know that if it were someone else that person would not have distinguished themselves more than those who were chosen? We cannot know for sure. We can only speculate.
A leader must live with his choices. But a leader can decide very early that there are persons whom he chose who need replacing, not perhaps because they have not performed to expectations, but because the leader may be looking for other qualities.
Political choices are never easy. A leader elected to office often has to satisfy a number of demands. On the one hand, there are those who we may feel have the technical knowledge to perform in a particular ministry.
On the other hand, jobs inevitably have to be found for some of the persons who formed part of the political ticket of the leader’s campaign. As in the case of the United States, there may have been persons who may have offered various forms of support and they needed to be rewarded.
There is no security of tenure for a minister. Today you can be on top of the world and tomorrow you can be voted out. Thus ministers are dispensable.
So it was with Burnham. So it is not with the PPP. Forbes understood better than most the importance of Cabinet reshuffles. He also understood the need to blood new talent and to ensure that he tried different things when things were not going well. It did not mean, however, that he tried the best. I certainly think not. In his latter years, some of his political choices became a source of amusement.
The PPP and the PNC are not much different. The PPP let go of two of its ministers. And instead of allowing them to retire and spend the rest of their years contemplating what could have been different, these persons, as the PNC did with their relieved ministers, were given diplomatic posting.
The PNCR did the same thing. However, sooner or later problems are bound to arise. You see, there is a limit to the number of diplomatic positions that can be offered to ex-ministers. However, there is always the option of these persons being employed within the government as advisers and consultants.
My issue is that if these persons – those who worked under the PNC and those who worked under the PPP – are the best that could have been had, then what prevented them from going out into the job market and finding jobs for themselves. Why is it felt in some instances that there is an obligation to find employment for these persons?