Orville Taylor | Yes Marlene ... but go for broke

Flashing back to the undeclared civil war of the 1970s to 1980s, one has to agree prima facie with the declaration by Minister of Constitutional Affairs, Marlene Malahoo Forte, that if re-elected, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) will be taking decisive action against politically influenced public servants.

However, she needs to go a step further. On a JLP political platform, and thus, certainly not the best place to make such a statement, she warned that employees, who underperform because their political orientation is not towards the ruling party, as well as those who do so with impunity, because it is their party in power, would be weeded out.

Wholeheartedly opposing an elected government is simply unpatriotic. Mark you, where the conduct and policies of a government are inimical to the public interest and apocryphal to the Constitution, they must get an ‘F’, and where applicable, use a different digit than the thumb in giving disapproval.

However, there are obligations, which public employees have, which are sacrosanct and indivisible in a democracy such as ours. Our Westminster style system of governance is predicated on the neutrality of public sector workers. Standards for public officers, such as police, municipal workers, central government employees and everyone paid from the consolidated fund, are very clear about political involvement.

Doubtless, there can be no space for any worker, who, because of political malice, is wilfully sabotaging the operations of her employer.

Outside of a political context, it is a well-established legal tradition, that any worker, who fails to perform her duties ‘with diligence and fidelity’ has committed a breach of her contract. Subject to the principles of natural justice, after an appropriate hearing, such person is liable to summary dismissal. In any event Section 43 (4)(i) of the Public Service Regulations (PSR) addresses such behaviour.

Similarly, anyone, who drags her feet because of nepotism or she believes that her job is a sinecure, is also violating her contract of employment. In essence, if one is negligent or insubordinate, the grounds for termination are as solid as jackass corn.

Therefore, the senior counsel and former parish court judge, although not a labour lawyer, is on firm legal footing and her warning statement is unimpeachable.

RISKY UTTERANCE

Yet, there is more. On a political platform, making any statement about the removal of public servants deemed to be political opponents, is a risky utterance, which can easily descend into allegations of victimisation, when spoken in a sea of green.

The issue is more fundamental, though. No one, who has a known or declared political allegiance, should keep her job as public officer. And that includes any professed Labourite, under this current administration.

Yes, as former permanent secretary in the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, Anthony Irons, warned us as civil servants in the 1980s, we must all be like Caesar’s wife; beyond suspicion. Across two administrations, beyond the warning, officers were called to meetings in his office, and excoriated for being in places where the minister was, unless it was a ministry event. And we should never wear the colours of any party.

True, as conciliators in the Industrial Relations Division of the ministry, we were right in the middle of the political divide, and thus a special breed. After all, the two major trade unions are arms of the two major political parties, and therefore, even narrow labour disputes had larger political over and undertones.

Nevertheless, the rule of being politically neutral as civil servants were long established by the PSR and then Staff Orders for The Public Service of 1976. Section 4.2.6 of the 2004 version of the latter explicitly prevents public officers from being involved in political activities.

Professionalism and neutrality have taken a beating over the years. Almost exactly a year after the 1976 Staff Orders were published, permanent secretary in the Ministry of Construction, also known as the Public Works Department, Ted O’Gilvie, was murdered presumably by politically affiliated thugs who believed that this strait-laced civil servant should ignore the terms and conditions of his appointment and allow for improper practices, in let certain persons ‘eat a food.’

Nonetheless, in the unique environment of the Industrial Relations Division there were two individuals whose political allegiances were generally accepted. On the one hand there was one who angered the then head of the Trades Union Congress, because of his perceived political bias in a matter. Without the intervention of the legendary Richard Hall of blessed memory, certainly a West Indies cricket type beating would have resulted.

Hall was enigmatic. Unapologetic about being a socialist, his stature as an unbiased practitioner was unquestioned. Admired and respected by Hugh Shearer, and Lascelles Beckford, the number one and two members of the JLP-affiliated Bustamante Industrial Trade Union (BITU), in the decade spent working with this legend, there was not one single complaint about his orange identity colouring his professional behaviour. However, ‘Uncle Richie’ was an enigma and an exception and certainly not the rule.

Given the increasing political divisiveness and current allegations of political victimisation within the current administration, it is important to avoid any perception that there is going to be any type of witch hunt, even if we start the adjective with an early consonant.

It must be zero tolerance, and if we are serious about keeping politics out of our public service, government must be prepared to not only bell the cat but cat the bell.

A word to the wise is sufficient.

Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com