ONE of the most troubling features of Guyana’s political culture is the tendency of some political actors to demand standards of accountability from their opponents that they were unwilling to apply to themselves when they occupied the seats of power.
4859The current debate surrounding the Government’s move to restore the Former Presidents’ Benefits legislation to its 2009 framework provides a timely example of this phenomenon.
Today, opposition figures are presenting themselves as champions of fiscal responsibility, transparency, and prudent public expenditure. Yet many Guyanese have not forgotten the actions of the APNU+AFC administration between 2015 and 2020, particularly the controversial legislation passed in 2017 to provide pension benefits to former Prime Minister Hamilton Green.
At the time, the APNU+AFC Government used its parliamentary majority to pass legislation specifically designed to confer pension benefits on Mr. Green decades after he had left office. The legislation generated significant public discussion because it was viewed by many as a measure tailored to benefit a political ally rather than a broad public policy initiative intended to address a systemic issue.
What makes the current criticism from the opposition particularly difficult to reconcile is that many of the same voices now questioning pension benefits remained largely silent when the Hamilton Green legislation was being advanced.
If the opposition believes that public expenditure on benefits for former office holders must be carefully scrutinised, then that principle should apply consistently. It cannot be a concern only when a PPP/C Government introduces legislation and an afterthought when an APNU+AFC administration does the same.
The issue here is not whether Hamilton Green should or should not have received pension benefits. Reasonable people can disagree on that question. The issue is whether the opposition is applying a consistent standard to matters of public spending and governance.
The record suggests otherwise.
During its time in office, the APNU+AFC administration repeatedly cited fiscal constraints when confronted with demands for higher wages, improved conditions for public servants, and increased social spending. Public sector workers were frequently reminded of the limitations of the national budget and the need for fiscal discipline.
Yet the same administration found sufficient fiscal space to pursue legislation benefitting a former political figure.
This contradiction raises legitimate questions that deserve answers.
Who specifically drafted and sponsored the Hamilton Green pension legislation? What policy rationale was used to justify the measure? What financial implications were presented to Parliament before its approval? Were independent assessments conducted regarding its long-term cost to taxpayers?
These are not partisan questions. They are governance questions.
Likewise, what were the precise financial arrangements associated with the pension package? Were there retroactive payments involved, and if so, what was their value? How much public money was ultimately committed under the legislation?
These questions become even more relevant when viewed alongside the opposition’s current objections to pension-related legislation.
Political credibility depends heavily on consistency. Citizens are more likely to trust criticism when it is rooted in principle rather than political convenience. When politicians condemn actions today that closely resemble actions they defended yesterday, they weaken the strength of their own arguments.
This is why the present debate should not focus solely on the contents of the Former Presidents’ Benefits Bill. It should also involve an honest examination of the broader record of those now presenting themselves as fiscal watchdogs.
Transparency cannot be selective. Accountability cannot be conditional. Fiscal responsibility cannot be invoked only when one’s political opponents are in government.
If public expenditure deserves scrutiny today, then it deserved scrutiny in 2017. If Guyanese taxpayers have a right to know the costs associated with benefits legislation now, then they also had that right when Parliament approved special pension arrangements nearly a decade ago.
The opposition’s challenge is not merely to criticise the Government. That is an important and legitimate function in any democracy. The challenge is to demonstrate that its criticisms are grounded in consistent principles rather than shifting political calculations.
Unfortunately, the current debate exposes a glaring contradiction.
The same political actors who now express concern about government spending were noticeably less vocal when legislation benefitting a former ally was moving through Parliament. The same voices demanding accountability today did not appear nearly as concerned about the precedents being established then.
That inconsistency is what many Guyanese find difficult to ignore.
As the discussion continues, citizens should examine the facts carefully and judge all political parties by the same standards. Governments should be held accountable for their decisions. Oppositions should also be held accountable for their records.
In politics, credibility is earned not by the volume of one’s criticism but by the consistency of one’s principles.
The public has every right to ask whether the current outrage reflects a genuine concern for taxpayers or simply another example of political amnesia.
That question remains at the heart of this debate.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.