Last week local politics took on a tincture of absurdity. It was all due to the efforts of Mr Clinton Collymore, the Co-Chair of the local government reform task force. The electors, of course, had grown weary of the reform process long before this; after all, they have been waiting for local government elections since 1997, and in the interim have had to endure no end of political games, not least where the management of the capital is concerned.
The original idea was that local government elections should be held under a reformed system, and in 2001 President Bharrat Jagdeo and then Opposition Leader Desmond Hoyte agreed to the setting up of the Joint Task Force on Local Government Reform comprising representatives of both the PPP/C and the PNCR, chaired by a member from each party. The thinking was that the two sides should come to an accord on reforms to the existing system before the relevant legislation was presented to Parliament. Prior agreement, it was thought, would ensure swift passage for the bills, and following this, polls could then be held. It all seemed very rational and commendable. However, this is Guyana, where the course of true concord never did run smooth.
The duration of the original mandate given to the task force was a year, but as we reported on Thursday, compromise has proved so challenging that it has been reconstituted on at least two occasions since then. There have been some breakthroughs, including on several matters related to the electoral system as well as fiscal transfers, but in a general sense the ruling party has proved reluctant to countenance genuine decentralization, and to relinquish central government’s stranglehold on local government bodies.
Apart from the inevitable impediment this presented to timely accord, in recent times it is Mr Collymore himself who has made a contribution to holding up proceedings. On October 6, 2008, we reported that the last meeting of the task force had been on July 22, because the PPP/C Co-Chair had asked for leave to conduct party business. His PNCR counterpart, it seems, had not heard from him since. The year before that he had fallen ill at the beginning of January, and in February he still had made no contact with his Co-Chairman, and the PPP/C had not appointed anyone to replace him. This year, there was another interruption when Mr Collymore was involved in preparations for Dr Cheddi Jagan’s death anniversary.
When the task force met last Tuesday, according to PNCR Co-Chair Mr Allan Munroe, discussions proceeded in an atmosphere of cordiality until what he described as a “bombshell” announcement was made by Mr Collymore. Out of the blue he told the members that he was ending the talks because the two sides could not agree on the agenda. In a subsequent statement the PPP/C Co-Chair said that when the task force reached the point in the agenda to discuss the Local Government (Amendment) Bill, the PNCR members insisted on looking at the Local Government Commission Bill instead. This, he continued, proved “a major and fundamental disagreement,” and since there was no way the meeting could have been proceeded with, he informed the members that “pending any further notification from me no meetings of the task force would take place.” We reported the PNCR Co-Chair as saying there had been no prior discussion about the termination with him, a claim which his PPP/C counterpart has not denied.
The combined opposition have raised their voices in unison on this matter, Leader of the Opposition, Mr Robert Corbin telling this newspaper that the parties did not regard Mr Collymore’s action as “official” since he had acted unilaterally. One can only ask what on earth Mr Collymore thought he was doing. In the first place he is a Co-Chair, with all that that implies, but far more important, he functions under terms of reference which he has no power to abrogate or even amend. That power lies at a level above him. As Mr Corbin put it, “He is first a functionary of a process set up by the Leader of the Opposition and the President, so he can’t inform us of any change in the agreement.”
It might be observed that Mr Collymore appears to have an ongoing problem recognizing the context in which he operates. In another egregious move last October (after the task force had not met on his account for almost three months), he submitted a memorandum to the President recommending that Cabinet take over the work of the task force owing to a deadlock. The opposition strenuously denied there was such a deadlock, and the task force duly met again.
As we reported on Thursday too, he has also now submitted a memorandum to the President and the Opposi-tion Leader outlining areas of disagreement on the task force which they should decide. The problem is he sent it in the name of the task force, without any reference whatsoever to Mr Munroe, his Co-Chair, who did not even see it before it was dispatched.
Where last week’s termination of the talks is concerned, Mr Corbin told the media that Mr Collymore had informed the task force he was acting on instructions; however, the latter subsequently denied this, saying he acted on his own. Be that as it may, Head of the Presidential Secretariat, Dr Roger Luncheon last Thursday expressed agreement with what Mr Collymore had done, something which suggests perhaps that even if the latter took the decision on his own, he did so with a general understanding of what his own side expected of him.
As said above, the PPP/C has shown no enthusiasm for putting in place arrangements which would release central government’s grip on the local authorities, and following Mr Collymore’s announcement, we reported Mr Munroe as saying that the governing party was afraid of looking at the draft of the Local Government Commission Bill because it would see certain powers currently vested in the subject minister transferred to the commission. Mr Jagdeo is on record as saying that if a bilateral agreement is not possible, then the issues should be debated in Parliament. There can be no doubt about what that would mean: even if the bill went to select committee, with its built-in majority the PPP/C could still push through whatever arrangements it saw fit, thereby precipitating yet another of our unending political crises.
Even if it is the case that the ruling party does not want to see the devolution of some power from the centre, and even if the hypothesis that Mr Collymore’s role is intended to be not so much that of a negotiator as a terminator, why the sudden rush to bring an end to the task force at this particular point? Gecom has indicated it could be ready for local government elections in November, but this is still only April, and for the sake of appearances it seems a little early to announce that talks have collapsed already.
What else is driving this sudden rush, considering it is the PPP/C side especially which has been holding up proceedings over the last two years?
One can only hope that the President will put a stop to all this foolishness and demonstrate a genuine commitment to greater democracy at the local government level. As a starting point the governing party should ensure they have someone in the chair who will give his or her undivided attention to the task force, has a comprehensive grasp of the issues and is gifted with a certain dexterity in negotiation. With good will on both sides, a PPP/C Co-Chair’s continuous attendance, and some hard work, it is surely not impossible for the task force to complete its mandate in time so the agreed draft legislation can go to Parliament and local government elections can be held this year. The onus is on the PPP/C to dispel the suspicion that it intends to move ahead to the polls without first fully implementing reforms.
