Kristen Gyles | Public sector politics

What exactly constitutes political activities?

Dr Aujae Dixon, a Jamaican junior doctor, who participated in the September 3 general election as the People’s National Party (PNP) candidate for the Clarendon North Central constituency, has been interdicted by his employer, the Southern Regional Health Authority (SERHA), for engaging in partisan political activity.

In a letter to Dr Dixon, the SERHA accused him of breaching section 4.2.6(i) of the Public Service Staff Orders which state:

“Officers are expressly forbidden to engage in any type of partisan political activity in any elections at any level”

What exactly is supposed to be the interpretation of this very broad and sweeping directive? Could the intention behind this provision in the Staff Orders really be to prevent officers from engaging in *any* type of partisan political activity? If so, it would mean that public servants ought not to be in attendance at political rallies, ought not to share views favouring or endorsing any political party and perhaps ought not to wear party colours at election time. That could never have been the idea behind the directive, for obvious reasons. Yet, all the aforementioned activities could easily be placed under the umbrella of partisan political activity. So, what really was the intention behind this directive, which frankly, has given way to more confusion than clarity?

Dr Dixon, who was unsuccessful in his general election campaign, had been functioning as the PNP caretaker in Clarendon North Central for several months prior to the date of the general election. At what point did his actions constitute a breach? Is it his image being published on party flyers and posters that created the breach or was it his name being listed on the election ballot? This is important because despite being widely known as a political candidate for an extended period leading up to the general elections, it was only after the elections that his employer seemed to notice he had breached the Orders.

For several years, section 4.2.6(i) of the Staff Orders has been the centre of controversy due to its potential implications for civil servants. Some have argued that the Orders are unconstitutional. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, for example, guarantees “the right to freedom of thought, conscience, belief and observance of political doctrines” and again, if a public servant is not allowed to engage in *any* partisan political activity, then how exactly are they expected to observe ‘political doctrine’ which may very well stem from the ideology of a specific political party?

SECOND LOOK

While lawmakers ought to give a second look to the problematic Staff Order, it is unfortunate that things have shaped into another political point-scoring match. It is good that the PNP has chosen to stand with Dr Dixon. However, it is nothing short of hypocritical for the PNP to now question the constitutionality of the Staff Order in question, when it complained to the Political Ombudsman leading up to the 2020 general election to have a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) candidate sanctioned because she was employed to the HEART/NSTA Trust.

Since both the JLP and the PNP have fielded political candidates in national elections who were at the time, public servants, it is also strange that a JLP representative would suggest that “…Dixon felt he was above the rules which is applicable to all public servants”.

So, this article is in no way a defence of either party, as their objectives are clear. The point, however, is that the Staff Orders for the Public Service are clearly not what they were intended to be. The revised Staff Orders are intended “to point the way towards more flexible operational procedures and to give effect to continuing improvement in conditions of service”. Lawmakers must ask themselves whether the SERHA’s interpretations of the Orders will lead to improvements in conditions of service or just create further confusion and pave the way for political victimisation.

Jamaicans belonging to all professional groups should reserve the right to participate in nation-building and national leadership activities, even if their path to doing so involves political affiliation. Jamaicans like Dr Dixon are well within their right to represent their peers as political representatives.

This is certainly not to say that political representatives should be permitted to hold offices within the civil service while collecting a salary for doing political work. However, the Staff Orders should be made to reflect that only at the point of assuming a role as a political representative is one required to resign from their employment as a public officer. Of course, exceptions to such a rule can be made in the case of public officers who hold highly sensitive roles, such as those that involve the management of significant public resources. However, this is not the reality for the vast majority of civil servants.

Political affiliation is neither good nor bad. In the same way that one may align him or herself to a religion that accords with their belief system, one may similarly align him or herself to a political ideology or political group. Neither political activism nor affiliation should be weaponised against professionals working in the public service.

Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Send feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com