The wages of Salarygate

The salary scandal precipitated by the Cabinet of the A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change (APNU/AFC) Government’s enormous salary hike for themselves reveals a strong streak of moral cynicism by the members of that Cabinet, who, if the Minister of Governance is to be believed, all participated in the decision to enrich themselves from the public treasury. And this action was done in direct contravention of their policy on salaries as stated in their Manifesto: Under the heading, “Industrial Relations and Labour Welfare”, the coalition criticised the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) for “the enormous widening of the gap between the haves and the have nots”, and committed to “Establish an Independent Constitutional Salaries Review Commission to be responsible for the periodic review of salaries, pensions and other conditions for persons appointed to Constitutional Offices, including the President, Prime Minister, Judges, MPs and other special offices.”

The question arises as to why did the Government not appreciate that the 50 per cent increase on an already generous average Gy$579,000 salary for Ministers, contraposed to their five per cent increase to public servants, which was a far cry from the promised 10-20 per cent, would stir outrage? Who was going to complain if the “differentiation” in pay scales, as first offered by the President as the rationale for the decision, was left to a Committee? While in Opposition, the present Executive had criticised the PPP for “extravagant” salaries and benefits.

In the United States, which is a model that many look towards in modern times since their economic system, including its incentive structure, has been adopted here and in most countries, such a Committee is appointed by the President with the caveat that the Senate must vet and approve the appointees. The salaries of the President and all officers are fixed and graduated in five bands. A President in the US cannot raise his salary while in office; this means that only his successors can benefit from such an increase.

Back in 2013, in solidarity with federal workers suffering from Budget cuts, Obama returned five per cent or US$20,000 of his salary.

Compared to the salaries of most top private enterprise Executives in the US, the salaries of their President and Cabinet Secretaries (as they call their Ministers) are far smaller. From the comments of the Guyanese President and his Minister of the Presidency, it is clear that their premise is that the salaries scales of the two groups must be comparable. However, this undermines the ideal of “public service” which undergirds the civic culture of even the most unabashed capitalistic Government in the US.

This is not an incidental point. Individuals seeking “office” who are simultaneously seeking “money” have an inbuilt contradiction in motives. As in the US, it should be expected that the “office holder” be facilitated to live comfortably, but beyond that, to show by their example they are willing to serve their country. This betrayal of the “self-sacrifice” ideal has been the major factor in the disillusionment of even the supporters in the Government.

It has been speculated that the Cabinet rushed into the decision because they felt that their incessant accusations of “corruption” by the previous regime, magnified by their gutter press allies, would have made the populace inured to their self-enrichment. But it is now clear that they miscalculated.

In fact, studies show that while in countries with high levels of corruption, ordinary citizens might all engage in the practice, they do so because corruption is a “frequency” phenomenon: people do it because they believe everybody else is doing it. But this does not mean they internalise it into their belief system: they know it is damaging to their communities and can be encouraged to protest.

The Government has been trapped by its own artifice; by convincing their supporters the PPP’s position on Ministers living well, was “corrupt”, their unseemly rush to double their salaries in the midst of austerities, has cost them a trust that will never be recovered.