The Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), once set up, will be run by ten commissioners rather than seven, as a new category which makes provisions for representatives from “Indo”, “Afro” and Indigenous Guyanese Cultural/Ethnic Groups to be appointed, has been added.
These provisions, contained in the ‘First Report of the Committee on Appointments in Relation to the Appointment of Members of the Ethnic Relations Commission’ are the results of 16 meetings held between March 16,h 2012 and November 13 this year. The report, which was passed by government and opposition members at the level of the committee, is slated to be presented to the National Assembly to be adopted at the next sitting early next year.
The committee comprised 8 members: A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) MPs George Norton (chairman), Amna Ally, Deborah Backer and Annette Ferguson; People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) MPs Dr Leslie Ramsammy, Dr Frank Anthony, Juan Edghill and Gail Teixeira; and Alliance for Change (AFC) MP Valerie Garrido-Lowe.
According to the report, a 10-member ERC, the third of three options, was decided on by the committee at its July 24 meeting. Options 1 and 2 would have seen the ERC having 14 members, although the required nominees from the different categories would have varied.
Option 1 called for one representative each to be nominated from the Hindu, Muslim and Christian faiths, and two persons each from Labour, Women, Youth and Business. Similar to Option 3, it would have also seen the creation of a new category which allows for one representative each to be nominated from the Afro, Indo and Indigenous Guyanese populations.
Option 2 would have required that two representatives each be nominated from the Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Labour, Women, Youth and Business communities.
However, Option 3, which was agreed to by the PPP/C and APNU, required one representative to be nominated from each category for a total of ten nominees.
Although the recommendation to amend the size of the ERC’s composition was made via Resolution 62 of 2000, the inclusion of a new category – Cultural/Ethnic – was new, and Garrido-Lowe of the AFC had opted for Option 2, since, according to the report, “the AFC was not in favour of the inclusion of the new category included in Option 3.”
Although the report said a list of entities eligible to nominate members to the ERC was examined, it did not specify which entities were examined, aside from four which were unclassified for a particular purpose.
Ananda Marga, Bakja Health Movement, Family Federation for World Peace and National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai’s in Guyana, the report said, which fell under Inter-Religious Organisation, were written to with the intention of finding out which religious category they preferred to be included to be consulted to submit nominees to the ERC.
The bodies were “unclassified” for this purpose according to the Report. And only Bakja Health Movement and the Family Federation for World Peace responded and were therefore listed under the Muslim and Christian Bodies respectively. The other two groups failed to respond.
The history of the ERC, a body created by virtue of constitutional amendments, has been a conflict ridden one. For example, the PPP/C and the opposition were unable to, between 2007 and the Ninth Parliament, arrive at a consensus on the list of entities to invite to submit nominees for appointment to the ERC.
As a result, the government moved that then President Bharrat Jagdeo take note of the situation and that he extend the life of the commission beyond its 2007 life span. The government, still in possession of the majority seating in the National Assembly, passed the motion and the life of the pre-2007 ERC persisted, despite the opposition’s protests.
In 2010, the PNCR called for a boycott of the ERC. The boycott was issued as a response to an invitation by the body to stakeholders to assess its work. According to the party, the invitation was the “latest manoeuvre of the unconstitutional ERC and its chairman to justify their existence.”
Further, then PNCR Leader Robert Corbin in 2011 challenged the extension of the ERC’s existence by way of an ex parte injunction. His argument was that the constitution shows that the President has no locus standi in the matter, and that the move to extend the life of the ERC was unconstitutional, and null and void.
This move yielded nothing for the opposition, although the results of the 2011 elections gave the opposition parties a new power they would use in 2012 to fight what they saw to be an unconstitutional decision. The 2011 elections produced a minority government (32 of 65 National Assembly seats) to a combined APNU/AFC majority (33 seats).
During the 2012 debates of the budgetary estimates, the opposition parties slashed allocations intended to the ERC to $1, arguing that the body, as it was constituted at that time, was not legal and therefore undeserving of the funds allocated to it.
The future of the ERC will be determined by the outcome of the National Assembly’s vote once the report is laid next year.
