Dear Editor,
Who must account for the dozens drowned in the Barima tragedy, one that should have been avoided? It is not that a hundred drowned or cannot be accounted for. It is because many who survived the tragedy were not on the manifest. And there were claims of ship cargo overloading. A 87 year old boat, consigned for major overhaul and repairs, was sent to the ocean in rough waters. Why? Who is responsible for this disaster? Who should be held accountable for this mishap – the government, the President, the PM, the Ministers, public, others?
It is not a question of criminal guilt but political accountability and moral responsibility. The latter two concepts are at the heart of democratic governance. This is constitutional propriety not a question of personal culpability. President Ali administration is responsible for all affairs. Specific responsibility for the ship and transport falls under Indar Deodat and Juan Edghill. Should both be held accountable? Should both be asked by the President to resign or simply fired? The opposition and protesters are right to call for their heads. And what should be the role of the public in this disaster other than say they are sad, feel sorry?
In any other country, both Ministers would have been fired long ago for their failures in road construction (pot holes and uneven surfacing), airport construction delay, electricity black outs, high cost of energy, countless road fatalities, allegations of corruption, among others. In a functioning democracy, ministers take responsibility for serious policy failure that impacts on the lives of the nation, particularly when lives are lost. The Barima disaster is the largest man made in the country and region’s history. The public must not be silent.
A democracy is tested not only in winning elections but by the manner in which the elected accept responsibility when public institutions fail. In England, they do. This concept is at the heart of the repeated crises surrounding national disasters, so many in the country over the last six years, and no one was held accountable save when Nigel Dharamlall was forced to resign over repeated rape scandals. Is it true also that his family business supply cement and office supplies to the government?
The central question is not whether Indar and Edghill personally overloaded the boat or loaded the boat with passengers not on the manifest or steered the old boat to disaster. The question is whether the political heads of the Ministries responsible for the boat and for transportation and for rescuing passengers should accept political and moral responsibility when the system under their authority fails. Helicopters were not sent to rescue lives. Ministers are known to claim credit for successful schemes and national achievements. They cannot disclaim responsibility whenever their policy fails. And for both Ministers, they repeatedly failed in a variety of projects, too many to list. The distinction between criminal guilt and moral and political accountability lies at the heart of democratic governance. The gravity of the offense and magnitude of the disaster with so many deaths require some kind of ministerial accountability.
The political heads of ministries responsible for the Barima disaster and for water transport must accept responsibility when a grave failure of 100 killed occurs within the system under their charge. The Ministers may be innocent of a crime unless it is found they were involved in fraud relating to the manifest and load. Yet they must be held responsible as the political head of a system that failed the nation. Oversight was not properly exercised that led to boozing and smoking weed.
When a tragedy happens, the right and honorable thing to do is for the head to resign. Resignation is not an admission of criminal guilt. It is an acknowledgement that public office carries public responsibility and accountability. Authority and accountability are fused.
It is reported that individuals are arrested for criminal reasons like overloading the boat, not having passengers on the manifest, consuming alcohol, smoking weed, etc. Also, the government announces a COI and some workers are suspended or still in lock up. The tragedy may lead to reforms. But none of these actions address the issue of accountability in a democracy: who was politically responsible for oversight to make sure that the system was secure and trustworthy? Lives were at stake. Failure was not an option. Responsibility cannot be pushed away. Authority and accountability are fused. One cannot exercise authority and not want accountability for actions.
The President is the head of the government and responsible for the overall political direction. Indar Deodat and Juan Edghil were given the responsibility to oversee affairs of ferry and marine transport. They must be held responsible for failures. Accountability has failed at the level of the presidency also. The President is not acting politically responsible by not firing the two Ministers. This is hubristic. And he will pay a price.
Leadership must be exemplary: those who hold public office must accept responsibility. If the two Ministers refuse to step down, the President must answer. Democracy is strengthened when power accepts its duty to be accountable. Citizens too have a responsibility. When those in power fail to accept accountability, the public cannot remain silent. They have a right to take action, take to the streets for change.