The United States Embassy yesterday announced that the $300M Leadership and Democracy (LEAD) project will continue with or without government’s participation, while denying the Donald Ramotar administration’s claim that it had no input.
“Absolutely… the project contractor is on the ground. We will engage with those stakeholders who wish to engage…We will continue to work in that spirit. We hope government will find a way to work with us,” said US Ambassador Brent Hardt yesterday, when asked if the project will continue in light of government’s rejection last month.
The embassy also yesterday released a series of correspondence showing that from the start government was actively engaged on the project.
Ambassador Hardt expressed surprise at Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon’s recent public declarations that government had rejected the project and was pulling out because it had no input in it.
“That’s completely false that we are not meeting them. We have had over one dozen meetings. From the onset of this proposal, we have worked diligently to involve the government and have been …working to get the government input on this project,” Hardt said in an exclusive interview with Stabroek News.
He contended that the project wasn’t forced on government and he said that every time government sought clarity he was there to give it. “At no time did we say ‘Here is the programme, sign it,’” he said.
The International Republican Institute (IRI)-project, which is funded through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), was launched in July of this year and Hardt had said that it was expected to bolster the functioning of the National Assembly through encouraging consensus building and working with civil society and the public to boost citizens’ engagement with the National Assembly and all parties to support the legislature’s role as an effective deliberative body.
In the months leading up to the launch, meetings were held with stakeholders across the political spectrum as part of the planning for the successful implementation of project.
However, on November 26, Luncheon announced that the administration had rejected the project. Asked why, Luncheon would not go into details but said that the actions of USAID were not in keeping with conventions of past projects. “This one in 2012 departed from that convention… we were presented with an agreement to sign over which we had zero contribution… Why the abandonment? Nobody can explain but so grievous has been the consequence of this abandonment, Cabinet had no option but to pull the plug,” he said.
Addressing the project once more on Wednesday, Luncheon maintained that lack of consultation was the reason for the administration’s pullout. He also informed that he had written to the US Ambassador seeking clarity on whether or not there was truth to reports of the project still being executed. “There have been repeated reports that activities in the disapproved project are being implemented currently by either the US Embassy or the USAID or the International Republican Institute,” he told a press briefing.
However, the US Embassy released correspondence between Ambassador Hardt and other Embassy officials and government officials, including President Donald Ramotar, showing attempts to engage the ruling party which had reservations about the project almost from the inception.
Hardt explained that the project came at a time when USAID had decided to close its mission here. He said since for years it had funded and invested in democracy and governance projects, it was still concerned with Guyana’s development and with the results of the 2011 elections, there was an opportunity for all parties to have a say in parliament.
He said the local embassy spoke to Washington on implementing a project that would provide opportunities for dialogue and consensus building among parties, among other benefits, and enhance democratic progress and governance institutions in Guyana by strengthening the capacity of political parties in parliament. After analysis, Washington agreed and the monies came from a separate funding pot—the IRI.
Support
On the 18th of October, 2012, Hardt wrote to President Ramotar informing that USAID was planning the project and asked for support. He noted that as part of the planning process, personnel from USAID’s Barbados and Eastern Caribbean Regional Office would be in Guyana later in the month to meet with local stakeholders, develop an understanding of how to best strengthen local political institutions and processes and provide further background on elections and political processes funding goals. “I am writing to solicit your support in coordinating a meeting with appropriate leaders within your party to hear your insights and perspectives on a range of issues central to supporting open and effective participatory democratic practices in Guyana,” the ambassador write. The two met on October 29th and the president provided information on a range of issues. On November 29th, the Ambassador again wrote thanking him for the meeting and enclosed a synopsis of USAID guidelines on working with political parties. The Ambassador stated that this was to guide and provide assistance to all political parties during implementation.
Then on December 12th, the PPP wrote alluding to “dangers of this programme.” “The PPP is reiterating its reservations about the project and its relevance to domestic politics,” the letter said.
Hardt, in reply, said no specific concerns were cited but offered to address the general issues raised and his correspondence included information on USAID’s track record in Guyana and its record of success and fairness.
He also pointed to the administration’s correspondence to diplomatic missions, including the US Embassy, in which it had warned that Guyana is “under threat” as a result of the opposition’s parliamentary control and appealed for support. “I note that the Government’s December 11 briefing calls on the Embassy to consider what steps it might take `in support of the protection of parliamentary democracy and the legitimacy of a democratically elected government.’ This USAID program is designed precisely to encourage a more representative and competitive multi-party system; effect a broadening and sharing of political power, and support consensus building aimed at promoting peaceful agreement on democratic reform,” he wrote. “In light of the Government’s concerns about political stability and the importance of strengthening parliamentary democracy, I can think of no more appropriate action we could take than to move forward as expeditiously as possible with the proposed program.”
Hardt also pointed out in that letter that USAID had had a long record of engagement here in support of democracy and governance. “Indeed, in the last elections, USAID provided critical support to the Guyana Election (s) Commission, assuring the integrity of the voter registry, training poll workers, and ensuring all major media outlets and scores of journalists signed a Media Code of Conduct for Elections. USAID has supported voter education and outreach to young voters and domestic election observation to reach most of the country’s 2,200 polling stations. Thanks in part to USAID support in the last election cycle, there was widespread voter confidence in the electoral process and the elections were deemed to be free, fair and peaceful”.
The correspondence continued throughout this year and then on August 8th government sent a letter saying it was not comfortable with the programme and wanted more detail on how it would be put into action.
USAID Mission Director Dan Smolka, on August 22nd met with, government officials and provided a detailed description of the contours of the project. A detailed outline of the project was sent again to government. “We trust that this description will help address the Government’s interest in a more detailed overview of the project’s goals and approach in strengthening parliament and the interactions among parties in parliament, supporting local government elections through civic education and boosting engagement of young people and women in politics,” Charg̗é d’Affaires Bryan Hunt wrote to Luncheon on behalf of the Ambassador on August 26, this year.
In addition mention was made of USAID’s commitment to return to Guyana to give clarity yet again should there be any questions. “As USAID Mission Direction mentioned to you he is prepared to return to Guyana at a mutually convenient time to receive any substantive feedback and address any outstanding questions that you or your cabinet colleagues may have,” the letter to Luncheon stated.
Hardt stressed in the interview that he does not want to sour relations with government as throughout he has maintained inclusion of all political parties. “We have made it clear to government and the PPP that we have ways we can address their issues in the program…it has value for all,” he said.
He pointed out that there has also been the misinformation in some sections of the media that the program will give financial aid to political parties. “We want to make clear that we do not provide funding to parties,” he said. This was also stated in a correspondence to the Presidential Secretariat Head. “The program will not provide financial assistance to parties. In fact existing legislation prohibits the use of US government direct funding of political parties. It will provide capacity building support in an open and transparent manner to all parties in the context of their parliamentary engagement,” it stated.
Echoed also was USAID’s vision of a secure Guyana where its peoples were healthy and prosperous and parliamentary democracy is had.
