If you’re waiting for a court judgment that declares that someone was a victim of racial discrimination, before you believe racial discrimination exists, you’re in for a long wait, for no one can prove racial discrimination. All a citizen can show is that he was treated unequally or differently, when compared with other similarly circumstanced people.
The motive and reason for the unfair treatment is not a matter the victim can prove, for this would be known only by the discriminator. This common sense reasoning explains why our constitution does not require an aggrieved citizen to prove why he was treated differently; all he needs to show is that he was treated unequally or unfairly. In the past, the racial imbalance in the public service was probably due to social, cultural and political influences that made it a more attractive career option for non-Indians.
Since the 80s, however, things have changed. Indians are now the single largest ethnic group. It is an educated, large workforce. They are not confined to the South alone, but have migrated to and re-settled in various parts of the island. The children of the cane cutters have been educated and find the public service a good career option. In the face of this new reality, the persistent racial imbalance in the public service and (in particular the hierarchy), demands closer analysis.
Demonstrated bias
Is there a glass ceiling in the public service that prevents Indo-Trini public servants from gaining promotion to the higher levels? Is there an institutional bias against Indo-Trini public servants? Is this bias a conscious, unconscious or subconscious one? Is this all based on race? Or, is it simply political favouritism and discrimination, which translates into a demonstrated bias against Indians, because our politics is one that is based on race?
Are there other forms of discrimination based on gender, locality connections, etc? The cases of Devant Maharaj, Khimraj Bissessar, Ganga-Persad Kissoon, Feroza Ramjohn and Harridath Maharaj all concerned promotion to high public office. The courts declared that they were treated unfairly when they were bypassed in favour of others.
Invariably, they were bypassed in favour of junior officers with less qualifications and experience who were non-Indian. Their long and distinguished careers were restricted by unfair treatment. I have represented many public servants of all races, and know that discrimination is not simply confined to race. It is much wider, and many Afro-Trini public servants are also treated unfairly. The complaints vary, but it is clear that all is not well with the hiring and promotion practices in the public sector.
What are some of the grouses?
1. The promotion interview panels seldom contain Indo-Trinidadian interviewers, and this leads to an unnecessarily (and sometimes unjustified) feeling of discrimination when Indian officers are given lower marks by the interview panel. It is suspected that interviews were used as a sham or device to ensure the promotion of certain favoured officers.
2. Staff reports and the disciplinary process are, sometimes, cleverly used to manipulate the procedure for promotion by suddenly giving adverse markings or inventing bogus disciplinary matters to prejudice and weaken an officer’s claim for promotion at a critical time.
Right questions
Once promotions are made, these adverse markings or disciplinary charges are simply withdrawn.
3. The system for acting appointments is also abused by putting someone to “warm” the seat without confirming them, while the favoured person is given time to qualify for the promotion, or the person appointed to act reaches retirement age.
4. The granting of study leave is carefully controlled to allow favoured officers time off to better their qualifications, while denying applications from others.
This allows some to “pad” their resumes and position themselves to cash in on promotions at the expense of others. It gives them an unfair competitive edge.
The commission is supposed to be independent, but operates in a vacuum or ivory tower, as though it is unaware of the plight of those who complain about discrimination and unfair treatment. It has done nothing to alter the racial composition of the interview panels, for example. It sometimes acts as a “rubber stamp” without asking the right questions, with the result that discrimination occurs frequently. It is often a classic case of an independent body naively “clearing track for a particular ’gouti to run.”
By Anand Ramlogan