Loyalty, competence and dual citizenship

Dear Editor,

So many would agree with colleague Vishnu Bisram’s contention that the renunciation by the Minister of Tourism, Industry and Commerce, of her dual citizenship status requiring legal advice to be provided by the Clerk of the National Assembly, is a ‘non-issue’ – as reported in Stabroek News of October 30.

They may also be disposed to argue that more fundamentally the issue is but dalliance on a mindset of the decision-makers who contributed to the institution of the relevant clause in the Constitution decades ago, probably in the conviction that we were self-sufficient as a country in needed professional competencies.

For some, there continues to be this search in order to understand the insinuation of ‘disloyalty’ to one’s country, if, for example, born in another – an obvious case of having no choice (like Dominic Gaskin’s).

However, it is by no means an extreme contrast to observe the many who are born and remain inside, but who substantively contravene laws in ways that, arguably, display a lack of loyalty, about which, unfortunately, minimal apprehension is ever expressed.

In the milieu there are some who enquire (however tentatively) about the equivalence between ‘loyalty’ and ‘competence’, and how much the former contributes to productive decision-making and performance.

Apart from reference to Parliamentarians (Government and Opposition), alert observers respond, pointing to the range of critical strategic decisions made across public sector organisations and which contribute to fundamental national productivity, but without any question of the loyalty of the related decision-makers within the porous context of multiple citizenship.

But then what about Advisors (Technical/Administrative) to political leaderships. No question appears regarding the degree of loyalty involved in their input; even while there may be reservations about competence.

Permanent Secretaries and Regional Executive Officers, for example, are amongst the range of critical decision-makers in respect of whom citizenship (like gender) appears to be a ‘non-issue’. Nevertheless they are presumed to be eminently ‘loyal’ to the cause.

Our human resources capabilities need desperately to be upgraded, if only to incentivise a Parliament not sufficiently determined to reform our Constitution, and in the process treat ‘dual citizenship’ as a ‘non-issue’ in the final analysis.

Yours faithfully,

E.B. John