Dear Editor,
Unfortunately the concept of shared governance has often taken on such a vague, indeterminate, and clichéd meaning that the connotation attached to it is molded solely by whatever significance a particular speaker gives it at the moment. It is erroneous to interpret shared governance in terms of its ordinary connotation, i.e. that a committee votes on the implementation of any new plan/proposal. Rather than simple committee consensus, shared governance aims to delicately balance interested parties’participation in decision-making processes and administrativeaccountability. Shared governance has gradually evolved to the point of more representation in the decision-making processes. As such, underlying the core of shared governance are two corresponding concepts: inclusion of interested parties in key decision-making processes; and the restriction of primary responsibility for such decision-making to certain other groups.
Essentially, “shared” provides a role for everyone but does not permit everyone to participate at every stage, for someone must remain accountable for the final decision.The Government of Guyana has undertaken steps in furtherance of its commitment to incorporate shared governance into the decision-making processes of the State. Guyana’s Constitutional Reform Commission introduced major and fundamental amendments to the 1980 Constitution, including, among others, establishment of 5 Human Rights Commissions through an agreed on parliamentary consensual mechanism, and established a new constitutional architecture which implements inclusive governance, participatory democracy, devolution of more powers to the Legislature and greater Executive oversight.
The new constitutional architecture includes a process of meaningful consultation with the Office of the Leader of the Opposition in the appointment of key constitutional post holders.
The Leader of the Opposition may submit to the President six names from which he selects the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission. In addition, 3 of 6 members of the Commission shall be appointed by the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. See *Article 161(2) and (3)*.
Similar provisions govern the appointment of members for the Judicial Service Commission, the Public Service Commission, the Teaching Service Commission, the Police Service Commission, and the Human Rights Commission—through meaningful consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. See *Articles 198(2)(a), 200(1)(a), 207(2)(d), 210(1)(a), and 212N(3)*. This model of inclusivity represents an opportunity for dialogue
between the State and oppositional political entities regarding decision-making.
In 2008, President Jagdeo initiated the convening of the National Stakeholder Forum comprising approximately 100 organizations from civil society representing all the parliamentary political parties, religious bodies, the labour movement, the business community etc. This form of shared governance was an innovative attempt to create an opportunity for more broad-based dialogue on matters of national importance and to find a common path for action.
To strengthen the participation and involvement of the religious community, the Government initiated a Government of Guyana/Faith-Based Organizations Partnership. Also, the Guyana Human Rights Commission met from 1999-2002, during which it held consultations with thousands of people in their communities across the ten administrative regions and received recommendations for changes to the 1980 Constitution. The Indigenous People’s Commission was created to establish mechanisms to enhance the status of indigenous Guyanese and to respond to their legitimate demands and needs.
In light of this vast framework of constitutional reform, parliamentary consensual mechanisms as well as inclusive governance and participatory democracy avenues, it is undeniable that the Government of Guyana has made a respectable effort in good-faith to implement a shared governance model by allowing community and regionally-based organizations, oppositional political parties, co-operatives, trade unions, civic and socio-economic organizations, the Leader of the Opposition, religious bodies, the labour movement, the business community, faith-based organizations and allcitizens, to participate in the management and decision-making processes of the State.
However, as discussed above, in coming to a fair and reasonable evaluation of Guyana’s shared governance model, one must take into account that in delicately balancing the inclusion of interested parties’ in key decision-making processes against its equally important countervailing interest in administrative accountability, the Government of Guyana must also restrict primary responsibility for such decision-making to the democratically elected representatives of the Guyanese People, for those persons are ultimately accountable for the final decisions. Additionally, one must bear in mind that the effectiveness of such shared governance opportunities cannot be judged either in isolation or in terms of its immediate impact, but rather, must be judged overall, by its gradual, cumulative effect.
Yours faithfully,
Cheddi B. Jagan II, Esq.
Legal consultant, Office of the President
