The PPP/C appears set upon a course of outdoing the PNC in negative accomplishments. Local elections have been held at sporadic intervals: 1959 then 1970, not again until 1994 and not since then. So there is no rush: the PPP/C has about 5 more years before it will surpass the PNC’s record of some 24 years between local government elections!
In any case, notwithstanding the public outcry, in my view we should not rush to these elections for a more substantial reason. Our experience with the sorts of governance reforms that are required before such elections can meaningfully take place has been, to say the least, very mixed. For example, at the general level our attempt at constitutional reform about a decade ago has left so many dissatisfied that they still pejoratively refer to the outcome of that effort as the “Burnham constitution” to suggest that not much of substance was changed! At the specific level, we created arrangements that make it all but impossible for us to appoint the nation’s leading legal officials, we unwittingly created an elections commission that appears permanent, we (the political party elites) constitutionalised an electoral plurality system that is totally unsuited for our a country, and we constitutionalised important commissions without being able to operationalise them!
Even more importantly, we continue to blame each other without recognising that the root of the problem is only marginally related to our self-interested politicians. Nowhere in our universe are politicians saints: the way to thwart them is to properly appreciate one’s concrete conditions and put adequate checks and balances in place. This we have not done, because even after half a century of stultifying independent existence we continue to proceed as if Guyana is a normal country to be fitted out with the normal institutions!
Since every country that has attempted constitutional reform has had to make political and technical adjustments as it moves forward and has done so by institutionalising some kind of reform mechanism, we proceeded to constitutionalise a Constitutional Reform Commission. But guess what, doing so has not helped us! If anything, it best exemplifies our utopianism and the dichotomy between formalism and reality that is normally associated with incapacity to properly assess one’s reality!
What we still do not appear to fathom (perhaps President Hoyte did to some extent) is that, given the polarised nature of our society and its majoritarian political system, once constitutionalised as an advantage or disadvantage to one group, hell will have to freeze over before perceived disadvantageous arrangements are properly implemented and/or advantages relinquished. Our majoritarian context requires: (1) the persistent and practical vigilance of the minority; (2) that we proceed with reforms in full knowledge that implementing change will prove difficult; (3) a proper national discourse before changes are made, as reliance on the party elites to craft sensible arrangements has been found wanting. On this last point, modern democratic approaches eschew this kind of elite imposition, and although a broader discourse may not prevent all errors, as the saying goes “two head better than one.” Furthermore, greater collective ownership would mean that if difficulties arise, there should be fewer recriminations.
If there are any misgivings about the primary position expressed above, I provide the following, both in defence of my contention and also to position the local government reform process that is currently taking place in the National Assembly.
As I will show in another article, over the decades there have been many efforts at local government reform and although rooted in Chapter V11 of our present constitution, the current process has its genesis in a 2001 agreement between former Presidents Hoyte and Jagdeo, which broke down but later morphed into a 2003 agreement between Mr. Robert Corbin and President Jagdeo.
Considering why the Hoyte dialogue broke down, Roxanne Myers and Jason Calder opined: “It is difficult to determine the underlying reasons why the dialogue process failed, but it is possible that the PPP/C government grew tired of the encroachment the extra-parliamentary dialogue process represented on its electoral mandate” (2011 – “Towards Ethnic Conflict Transformation,” Future Generation, Graduate School.)
In 2003, Mr. Corbin, the then leader of the PNC, and President Jagdeo, reexamined the question of local government reform, noted the breakdown that took place under President Hoyte and agreed that the joint-committee established then should be reappointed and provided with adequate support and resources, so that it could complete all of its tasks within 3 months.
These tasks included: “Giving priority to the electoral system to be used for future Local Government Elections. Developing a suitable system and appropriate procedures for compulsory annual fiscal transfers to the local government organs. Determining the Terms of Reference for an independent constitutional Local Government Commission. It was also agreed that Legislation for the implementation of all agreed local government reforms would be prepared for presentation to the National Assembly within six (6) months of the conclusion of the work of the Committee.” (‘Constructive engagement,’ Guyana Chronicle, May 7, 2003)
Three months after the agreement was signed, Mr. Corbin and the PNC were already driven into lamentation and slumping into denial! “The Joint Committee on Local Government Reform recommenced its work one month late and government is yet to present its response on the Electoral System and on the approach for financial allocations for each of the levels of local government.
Despite the best efforts of the PNCR’s Co-Chairperson, Mr. Vincent Alexander, it appears that Minister Collymore has been ordered to apply maximum administrative delay. It may be that he is on a frolic of his own but I would assume that the President is in a position to know”(Robert Corbin – August 17th 2003- “Address to the Nation On The Status Of the Implementation Of the Communiqué Signed by ……,” PNC Reform, Congress Place, Sophia).
When three months to complete a process turns into a decade and one party is crying foul, no amount of deceptive rhetoric can avoid the conclusion that there is deliberate obstruction on the one part and impotence on the other. No doubt the government again “grew tired of the encroachment the extra-parliamentary dialogue process represented on its electoral mandate” and the opposition could do nothing about it. After all, at the end of the day, all politics is about the power to integrate, articulate and defend one’s interests.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
