Our local government system has its roots in the immediate post-emancipation period when the new freedmen sought social and economic liberation from the plantocracy by purchasing plantations and forming independent villages. A report in the London Times of 19th August, 1845 referred to these villages as little bands of socialists, and they were run by democratically elected management committees in which women had equal rights, which they later lost by way of the Franchise Act of 1849 and did not regain again until 1928, when the British government reformed the Guyana constitution by Order-in-Council.
Today, local democracy is considered necessary not only because of the longstanding notion that emphasises its capacity to deliver more efficient and effective services but because with increased communication, knowledge and education people require greater and greater 
control over their social existence. I have argued elsewhere that those who live in devolved systems are said to be happier and less alienated than people who do not (“Unhappiness at Independence,” Future Notes, SN: 29/05/13).
Taking these factors into account, the litmus test of any effort at local government reform should be whether or not, given the economic, political and social context, it provides the maximum possible level of local control. Our political elites are not known for a propensity to relinquish levels of control. Indeed, so pronounced is the opposite tendency that some are said by others, perhaps cumbersomely, to be suffering from “control-freakism.” Unfortunately, we have all been nurtured in the same mould and this is another reason why there should be a broad public debate before the new rules are made into law.
Hopefully, the bird’s-eye view of the historical development of our local government system, which will conclude in a following article, should enhance our capacity to make a sensible contemporary judgment. (Much of the following discourse can be found in Henry B Jeffrey & Colin Baber (1985), ‘Guyana: Politics, Economics and Society’, Rienner).
During the apprenticeship period that followed emancipation, the slaves were paid relatively good wages and in 1839, almost immediately upon the end of their apprenticeship, 83 of them first bought plantation Northbrook, which they renamed Victoria, in honour of Queen Victoria, whom they credited with their emancipation, while other groups later purchased Aberdeen, Beterverwagting, Buxton, Danielstown, Litchfield, Rosehall and so on.
Tension developed between the planters’ need of cheap labour and the peoples’ wish to free themselves from the plantations. Some planters deliberately sabotaged the villages by flooding them, destroying fruit trees etc. More generally, laws were passed to stymie the labourers’ aspirations. For example, no rates were levied on the plantations and the public purse was used to help the plantocracy import indentured labour. However, Ordinance 1 of 1852 prohibited the joint purchase of land by more than 20 persons and Ordinance 33 of 1856 stated that where more than 10 people purchased land it must be divided among them and that the individual shares would be subject to a monthly rate to provide for the upkeep of the villages.
Even if one takes the position that rating was reasonable in the circumstances, the underlying intention was more devious, for “… there was little evidence that smallholders could do so more effectively than a communally held estate; but the prohibition of communalism would divert the ex-slave from large-scale land buying and thus make him more amenable to a return to plantation labour.” (Payne, HWL (1979), ‘Co-operative Socialism Revisited’, Georgetown).
In order not to lose their property under this kind of pressure, the villagers requested the formation of official local authorities, which they hoped would facilitate government support. In 1845, Queenstown on the Essequibo was provided with the first such arrangement and our system of local government formally began.
The municipalities of Georgetown and New Amsterdam were founded in 1782 and 1785 respectively. But it was not until 1837 that the citizens of Georgetown were allowed to elect a mayor and town council, and on 1 September 1891, the Governor conferred a mayor and town council upon New Amsterdam. No other towns were established until 1970, when, as part of a general local government reform programme, Linden, Corriverton, Anna Regina and Rose Hall became towns.
In 1907, there was a major local government reform, which established Local Government Boards and subdivided the country into four kinds of areas: Urban Sanitary Districts – the municipalities of Georgetown and New Amsterdam; Village Districts – all villages that had been previously declared; County Districts, which had almost similar status as the Village Districts but councilors were nominated by central government, and Rural Sanitary Districts, which included all plantations owned by companies and not included in other districts.
In 1931, the establishment of county councils was recommended by the Hector Joseph Committee, which also sought to incorporate the sugar estates into the local government system and recommended the appointment of administrative officers, and in 1932, District Commissioners (DC) were appointed to administer the nine Administrative Districts into which the country was divided. The DCs exercised wide-ranging powers and reported, through the Chief Secretary, directly to the Governor. They were responsible for all government activities in the district and one of their primary tasks was to supervise the work of the local authorities within their jurisdiction. This system lasted until the arrival of ministerial government.
The Denham Report of 1954 complained that the system of local government was ineffective and in 1955, the Marshall Commission was appointed to ‘enquire and report on all aspects official government in all rural and urban areas in Guiana and to make such recommendations for reforms as may be practicable and desirable.’
Dr Marshall’s main proposals were that Georgetown and New Amsterdam should continue to be municipalities and that there should be a single-tier system of local government. The entire coastland and riverain areas should be divided into eighteen large district councils, which should be able to carry out additional responsibilities. Marshall expected the new authorities to undertake many functions then in the control of central government and saw the inclusion of the sugar estates into the local government system as a sine qua non for the creation of large viable units.
Though highly acclaimed and criticized for making unrealistic assumptions about the level of socio-economic development in the rural areas, the Marshall Report remains a landmark in Guyanese local government history.
