Pray for the sins of an organization
Kaieteur News – I have always considered prayers offered at public events as a form of public communication. On the other hand, prayers made in silence and in private are a form of private communication.
The first, that is public communication, is a right protected under the Constitution. That to me guarantees the right to conscience and the right to freedom of expression. It means that a person of faith has a right to his belief, to express that belief and to propagate it to others.
A minister recently debuted in his prayer at the Police Officer’s Annual Conference. He prayed for the sins of the organization. He asked for forgiveness, on behalf of everyone, for some sins that are widely believed to be committed by ‘evil eggs’ within Guyana Police.
It would seem natural for a minister to pray for the redress of wrongdoing within any organization and not just to give thanks and praise for the good. Apparently, however, there was deep confusion over the minister’s request for the Police to get rid of bribery and corruption.
Anyone familiar with Guyana Police would not want to claim that no such practices exist in the organization. Those who pretend to have no corruption in the Police are burying their heads in the sand.
The public is not an illusion about this issue. And there can be little to complain about the fact that a minister requires divine intervention to eliminate such acts in Guyana Police.
But not everyone was pleased with the prayer. It seems that shortly after the event, the minister’s employment as Chaplain ended. But this decision was subsequently overturned, after saying that a world-class political activist had stated that he saw nothing wrong with the prayer.
There was no indication that any direction had been given to cancel the dismissal. But given the way things work in Guyana, it is not unusual for the views of a top political activist to be instrumental in the decision to quash the minister’s dismissal.
But why should anyone be unhappy if this was the case? Why does it have to be political interference for a politician to express an opinion on dismissal?
The Guyana Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. Our political leaders have a duty to ensure that these rights are not violated. It is inherently wrong for anyone to be dismissed simply because that person had suggested something that others considered a criticism of their organization.
Those who do not respect democracy may find it impossible to respect someone’s right to due process. That minister should not have been summarily dismissed. He should have been heard and, even if he had been convicted of a wrong, should have been entitled to give a reason why no penalty should be mitigated, including by offering an apology.
Arbitrary dismissal violates due process and, in the particular case, violates the right to hold and express that belief – freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. And there would be nothing inherently opposed to government intervention. The government has the right to draw attention to the hierarchy of police to what it deems to be violations of the rights of individuals.
It does not amount to political interference that it was suggested to the police that there was nothing wrong with what the minister said. And it is not political interference for the government to insist that a person’s rights are respected.
Trade unions are known to appeal to politicians to put right wrongs or put right wrongs. Little alleged political interference when people were arbitrarily dismissed under the previous regime. But when political appointments are moved, as is part of a convention, there is a big color and cry for ethnic cleansing.
No one shouted political interference when the APNU + AFC politicians decided to put thousands of sugar workers on the bread line. This was a political decision and not one made at the sugar corporation’s Board of Directors level. The Commission of Inquiry into the sugar industry did not even recommend closure. So it had to be a political decision to do that.
In terms of protecting people’s liberty, the political directorate has every right to intervene to ensure due process and fair play. But that is something that those who wanted to wipe out democratic elections might find difficult to understand and accept.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this newspaper.)