The continuing hostility and divisiveness surrounding the stalled anti-money laundering bill is an all too familiar occurrence in our politics, which has made it near impossible for mutual understanding and agreement on important national issues. This impasse is not simply the result of delayed movement on the legislation, it is the result of years of inflexible and unproductive politics.
This current crisis over the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Amendment Bill is embedded in the broader issues of political non-cooperation, radical disagreements and distrust. We have witnessed year after year how this inflexibility alters just about every political situation. Decision-making in our democracy is not a constructive process for devising acceptable solutions to our problems, but rather a competitive process in which our political leaders struggle to determine who wins and who loses.
And what’s more, the parties have been negotiating the passage of the bill focusing on entrenched positions and not common interests. We are well aware of how bitter and bruising this political battle has been yet throughout the entire negotiation process the parties have shied away from negotiating on principle.
If they had been negotiating on principle, the bill might have passed and we would have all been spared the lengthy political speeches about “enemies of the state,” “political blackmail” and “ruling without reason,” and so on.
Principled negotiation provides tools for parties to decide issues on their merit rather than through a haggling process focused on what each party says it will and won’t do (Fisher, Ury 2001).
Like the majority of citizens, I am concerned about Guyana being cited as a non-cooperative country by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). I am also not looking forward to FATF and its members taking countermeasures against us for failing to strengthen our anti-laundering systems. This is not an attempt at devising a solution to the current impasse – that is in the hands of our leaders who we have entrusted with making the crucial decisions. This is an exploration of the issue using a model that could be useful in our current situation.
First, there is the issue of separating the people from the problem.
This could be a very bruising process given our antagonistic political culture. The corrosive language that has been thrown into the discussions about the bill is not helpful. It’s difficult to get the parties to sit down and meaningfully discuss critical issues but they have made an attempt. The AML/CFT bill was engaging a parliamentary select committee for months and while the process was anything but smooth, the parties appeared to have been communicating their needs with respect to the legislation.
The bill was introduced in the National Assembly in April 2013 by the government and by November 2013 the government had decided to bring it back to House, despite the fact that there had been no agreement at the level of the Select Committee. As expected, the opposition parties with their one-seat majority, voted down the legislation.
The attacks swiftly followed. Almost every day there was something in the press about which side had been unreasonable and which side had been using delay tactics to stall the bill. The attacks intensified, and when you analyse them you get a sense of how our leaders’ partisan perceptions of each other is affecting the negotiations.
The public attacks did absolutely nothing to advance discussions at the level of the Select Committee and more importantly, they have hurt the passage of this crucial piece of legislation. Specifically, for this negotiation process our politicians have to stop attacking each other and start attacking the problem. Second, our le aders need to focus on their interests, not their positions.
The goal of working together in the interest of the citizenry gets tangled up in the competitive process they have been pursuing and, as a result, the negotiations have been reduced to scoring political points.
Based on the information out there – and there is a considerable amount – each party sees the merits of its case. If you ask the government to sum up the situation, they will say that the current bill is CFATF compliant and ought to be passed without any further amendments from A Partnership for National Unity (APNU). The government will stress that it discharged its obligations in respect of CFATF within the requisite time frames. Further, they will insist that the opposition’s amendments and conditions which are tied to the bill are unreasonable.
For the opposition, the current laws are weak and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) is substantially weaker. APNU wants a strengthened and independent FIU, and it has tied several conditions to offering support for the bill, including a request that the President assents to the bills which the opposition introduced and later passed in the National Assembly. The AFC has insisted that the government take sufficient steps to set up the Public Procurement Commission (PPC), and it has also agreed to support the conditions outlined by APNU.
Their positions are all known. Their positions have also led to the gridlock. But they need to focus on their shared interests, not on their positions. This is because they are being locked into those positions without any room for compromise.
While they are haggling over who wants what and who is not doing what, they are yet to zero in on their shared interests. For example, they each have a constituency to satisfy. They each have legitimate concerns about the legislation. And they share the responsibility of deciding what happens to Guyana when the country comes up for review before FATF in another few months.
This means that their current working relationship has to move beyond the arguments and incorporate respect, trust and understanding. The Select Committee has to go back to the “drawing board” and use the every deliberation as an ingredient that makes up the bill. This way the Committee process becomes an effective mechanism in strengthening interparty cooperation and getting the parties to focus on collective interest. In the end, the process itself becomes the bill.
Third, the deliberations at the Select Committee is also where the parties are expected to work through a variety of options before deciding what to do.
What we have seen these past few months is a series of possibilities being played out in the press and at public meetings, but that is not where the decision is going to be made. Indeed, they need to keep the public abreast with the developments but they need to communicate more effectively with each other.
It’s important for our leaders to listen to what the other side is saying and not easily dismiss it as a negative. If the government is not hearing what the ANPU is saying or they don’t care to hear it, there is no communication and vice versa.
The critical question they need to ask themselves when seated across the table at Select Committee meetings is this: How do we satisfy our collective interest? Put differently: How do we satisfy the national interest?
Fourth, the government and opposition must decide that whatever the outcome from the Select Committee, it must be fair to all the sides involved.
It’s likely that fair could mean different things to different parties in this instance, but at the very least, fair ought to mean that each side is satisfied with the final product which leaves the Select Committee. Whatever bill is returned to the National Assembly must reflect inclusivity.
Certainly, concessions would have to be made on all sides for the bill to win full agreement at the Committee level. It is up to the parties to decide what they are willing to concede.
I am inclined to believe that the current AML/CFT impasse is not beyond resolution and if the parties would adopt the principled approach to the negotiations as outlined, it is very likely that the bill will clear the National Assembly. The approach might appear time-consuming given that we are running against the clock, but it is designed to foster cooperation and shape common goals.
It’s almost a year since the bill was first read in the National Assembly and we have all been dragged into the long, bruising battle over its non-passage. Even more worrying is the fact that the national conversation on this bill is becoming increasingly polarised.
It is therefore in our interest that negotiations on this bill moves ahead with a clear approach to resolving the crisis. It’s in our interest that our leaders start negotiating on principle and end the brinksmanship.
Have a question or comment? Connect with Iana Seales at about.me/iseales
