It was the issue of the withdrawal of government advertisements from the Stabroek News which highlighted the lack of autonomy in local government once again. We recently reported that the government ads boycott of this newspaper had been extended to the regions, among others. The case of Regions Four (Demerara/Mahaica), Seven (Cuyuni/Mazaruni) and Ten (Upper Demerara/Upper Berbice) is interesting, because they are all headed by the opposition PNCR-1G which has condemned the ads withdrawal. While in Region Seven, the main opposition holds the chairmanship only because of the support of the AFC, the latter has also voiced its criticism of the government’s decision in the matter.
The Regional Democratic Councils (RDCs) are elected bodies, but the officials mandated to give effect to their decisions, namely, the Regional Executive Officers (REOs), are appointed by the Ministry of Local Government, taking the chain of command, so to speak, outside the regions altogether.
As we reported early last week, when the Advertising Manager Patricia Cumbermack approached the Regional Executive Officer of Region Four, Mr Shafdar Alli about the placement of advertisements, he declined comment and referred her to Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon. Subsequently, when this newspaper spoke to Region Four Chairman Clement Corlette, he said that when he raised the matter with Mr Alli the latter told him he was observing government’s policy, and in response to the proposition put to him that the RDC was an autonomous body which may differ on some national issues from the central government, replied that he felt the matter was beyond the regional level.
In the case of Region Ten, REO Henry Rodney told Stabroek News he simply sent the ads to GINA, and he never bothered about where they were placed. The Chairman of this Region, Mr Mortimer Mingo, gave an account somewhat at variance with this, and as in the case of Region Four, said the RDC was against the decision of the REO and central government in relation to this issue. He went on to say: “In effect, we do not have an RDC that is autonomous, and we have very little say in the decision-making process in the region.”
Region Seven Chairman Holbert Knights said that when he had asked his REO about the placement of ads, the officer explained that he forwarded all advertisements to the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Local Government, who would then look after the matter of where they were to be inserted. Other regions are controlled by the ruling party, and presumably the views of their RDCs are in sync with those of the central administration. As is clear from the above, where an RDC is headed by the opposition, the government is able to negate the democratic intent of the electorate of the region through its own appointed REO.
The situation is similar in the municipalities. It is the Ministry of Local Government which effectively controls senior municipal appointees, not the city council, and the government in the past has had no compunction about bypassing the M&CC, and dealing directly with the Town Clerk and City Engineer on the matter of implementing projects. The act which governs the municipalities has provision for a Local Government Commission which would operate like the Public Service Commission in relation to senior officials, but this was never set up, and the Ministry of Local Government stepped into the vacuum. The legislation itself dates back to PNC days, and clearly neither the previous administration nor the present one had any appetite for allowing local authorities even a measure of independence.
Last week at its statutory meeting the Region Four RDC tackled the issue head on by voting in favour of a directive for administrative officers to exercise fair play and transparency in the dissemination of material to media houses. It did not represent a unanimous decision, in so far as the PPP/C councillors abstained; it was the PNCR-1G, the AFC and the JFAP members who voted in favour.
It remains to be seen, however, how the region’s REO will respond to the directive in relation to the placement of advertisements, now that he has received one instruction from government and a different one from the RDC. In any case, Councillor Neil Kumar objected to the RDC directive on technical grounds, saying that the chairman should have presented a motion on the issue, and then have had it debated and a vote taken. It might be observed that depending on its formulation, a motion on its own account would not necessarily have constituted an instruction to the REO to follow a specified course of action.
It was at this same meeting that we reported PNCR Councillor Rawlewayne Payne as reminding his fellow councillors of the government’s interference in the decision about where the new Region Four Head Office was to be built after the original one was razed by fire. The RDC had wanted it re-erected at its traditional location in Paradise, but the government insisted it should be moved to Triumph. He told the meeting he thought that the RDC had not put up a strong enough fight on the matter, thereby making it possible for the government to impose its will.
It is perhaps a moot point as to whether even if the RDC had put up a more vigorous struggle in relation to the siting of the head office, the government would have given way; the evidence is that it lacks a facility for compromise unless forced into a situation where it has to make a concession. Even then, as has been demonstrated on many occasions, it is quite capable of ignoring agreements and rules, including when these are constitutional requirements.
The answer, as Region Ten Chairman Mingo observed, lies in local government reform, something that is under discussion by the Joint Task Force on Local Government Reform. Certainly the current arrangements are unsatisfactory; in the end it benefits no one and only leads to dissatisfaction and frustration if the government occupies every conceivable corner of political space in this country, even in local authorities and regions where the opposition is in the majority. It is, of course, not only suffocating in its effect, but also anti-democratic.
