The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that, that meeting convened by President Ali, at 5:30 a.m., with ministers of government, permanent secretaries and contractors could only be described as politically theatrical. The optics were unmistakably deliberate: an early-morning gathering to tackle inefficiency, ostensibly underscoring the government’s commitment to resolving long-standing issues of project bottlenecks and accountability. Yet, the underbelly of this carefully staged event hides a particularly troubling reality, one that raises serious concerns about the integrity of government operations, the persistence of political patronage, and the deepening erosion of public trust in the administration’s commitment to transparency.
At face value, the President’s decision to call for such a meeting might seem like an effort to instill a sense of urgency and discipline within the public sector, particularly in the realm of infrastructure development. After all, delayed contracts often signal a broader dysfunction within the system, whether due to inefficiency, poor oversight, or systemic corruption. Still, there is a glaring contradiction between the interplay of pretentious concern of public performance, on the part of the incumbent regime, and the deeper, in some cases, darker, political dynamics.
Frankly, it is highly improbable that the President was unaware of the extent of the contract delays before that meeting. In fact, many of the contractors present at the gathering are well-known for their affiliations with certain ministers, senior party members, and influential figures within the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C). Some of these contractors are not merely business owners but are essentially fronting for certain section of the political seçkine, serving as conduits, channeling lucrative contracts to party loyalists.
Given the close and unholy ties between these contractors and key members of the administration, it would be disingenuous to suggest that the President was not already aware of the scope of delays and the reasons behind them. The selective nature of the meeting’s call, targeting certain contractors while leaving others untouched, suggests that the President’s actions were less about uncovering a systemic failure and more about managing the already tattered public image of the government’s performance. By calling out a carefully chosen set of contractors, the administration seems to think that it can project an image of decisive leadership, while avoiding a deeper confrontation with those whose political connections enable them to escape scrutiny and sanctions.
This brings us to the core of the issue: the President’s selectivity in holding contractors accountable. Guyanese are not blind to the fact that some of the contractors who were singled out for censure are seen as having less direct political influence or a weaker connection to party elites. On the other hand, those with stronger ties to high-ranking members of the PPP/C or with direct access to state resources were conspicuously absent from the spotlight. This selective targeting speaks volumes about the PPP/C government’s true priorities and the fairness of its approach to governance as a whole.
When only certain contractors are held to account, while others, who are equally culpable or more so, are left unchallenged, it flags the duplicity this government and the emptiness of the President’s commitment to dealing with the issue of corruption and systemic issues within the public procurement system. The show of a high-profile, early-morning meeting was nothing more than a clumsy public relations exercise, aimed at placating public concerns rather than addressing the underlying causes of inefficiency and favouritism.
Again, the political theatre surrounding that early-morning meeting highlights a larger, more concerning trend: the erosion of public trust in the operations of this authoritarian regime. Guyanese are aware that the PPP/C is more interested in scoring cheap points and managing optics than in genuinely addressing the issues that affect their daily lives; they are disillusioned with the system. The blatant use of state resources for political patronage and the privileging of party loyalists in government contracts undermines the very principles of transparency, fairness, and accountability that are meant to guide public policy.
One glaring example of the use of state resources for political patronage is the indecent award of a state contract to construct a roadway, to Charrandass Persaud. This gentleman, a known politician, has no discernible background in infrastructure development or road construction. Yet, he was handed a contract, by the PPP/C, to the tune of 50 million dollars, to build road. At a time when Guyana’s infrastructure is desperately in need of expertise and efficiency, it is nothing short of scandalous that such a monumental project is being handed to a figure whose only expertise appears to be in political rhetoric, not construction. Something has to be woefully wrong with a government who gives such a contract to a politician, who has no technical competencies, in the field of infrastructure development. It is preposterous!
Interestingly, Persaud, by his own admission, said that he hired others to carry out the actual work. The question? Why, then, did Persaud, the middleman, take home a share of the taxpayer’s money? The obvious answer is simple: the government is more interested in rewarding political loyalty than in ensuring the work gets done competently.
This is the same gentleman who has the audacity to publicly rebuke the government for awarding contracts to people he believes are aligned with the opposition. In recent statements, he has lashed out at the government for awarding contracts to those he claims are tied to the PNC/AFC coalition. Indeed, under this PPP/C regime, shame, decency and integrity have fled to a desolate place.
Public trust in government institutions is already very fragile, and events like these, where it is clear, that political connections outweigh competence and integrity, demonstrate that the government does not deva about addressing the needs ordinary citizens; they are more concerned about rewarding their cronies.
The more the government resorts to scripted performances of accountability, without meaningful consequences for those in power, the more the public will feel alienated and distrustful of the political system.
It is particularly worrying that this spectacle comes at a time when the government has a treasury overflowing with oil money without the complementing demonstrative sense of responsibility and fiduciary duty. The government is capriciously handing out state resources to party members, who are acting as fronts, conduits and middlemen for others in hiding in the shadow of their official offices. Instead of taking decisive, transparent action to address contract delays and inefficiencies, the administration appears more focused on creating the illusion of action, rather than delivering tangible results because they can do no better. Let the PPP/C continue with its political antics and drama, they are fooling no one but themselves.