Five years after the Government of Guyana and the United States Government signed an assistance agreement for the implementation of programmes like the Leadership and Democracy (LEAD) project, the nation learnt that the project has now been put on hold. This unfortunate development took place following a series of public statements made by various government officials opposing to the project on the grounds that the Government was not consulted in its design, a claim that the US Ambassador denied.
In the last few months, the Government had been persistent in its call for a halt to the project. However, the US Embassy was adamant that it would proceed. Matters came to a head when the Government revoked the work permit of the head of the project, Mr. Glenn Bradbury. This prompted the US Ambassador to issue a statement that Guyana’s action was contrary to the understanding of the two countries with respect to the project. He met subsequently with the Head of the Presidential Secretariat, and the two parties issued a joint statement that the project has been placed on hold pending further negotiations. The Ambassador indicated that the United States welcomed the Government’s willingness to engage in further dialogue on the project.
Background to the project
The LEAD project came about as a result of USAID’s assessments in 2006 and 2008 that indicated a need to change the culture of political mobilization based on ethnic considerations, if Guyana is to achieve its full potential. These assessments are not a new development of which Guyanese were not previously aware. Ethnic considerations have long become an entrenched feature in Guyana’s political landscape perhaps since the 1950s.
The two main political parties are the beneficiary of this practice that is not conducive to the health of the nation and has stymied development over the years. They have done little to effect a change in this mindset so that citizens can make decisions on the public interest based on careful analyses of facts and pertinent arguments rather than on ethnic considerations. What is, however, new is that a country that has provided so much material and other forms of support to Guyana in critical times of need, has recognized the need for Guyanese to rid themselves of this mindset which is anathema to democratic norms. It has decided to put together a programme in partnership with all stakeholders, including political parties, to assist Guyana overcome this key obstacle to development. The effort should be applauded.
Details of the agreement
In September 2009, the Director of USAID and the Minister of Finance signed an assistance agreement with the primary objective of helping to heal ethnic polarization and to promote issue-based politics. The focus would be on providing a platform to encourage discussion and consensus building among stakeholders, including political parties, civil society organisations and the private sector. A key element relates to supporting selected private sector and civil society organisations to make them sustainable in light of dwindling international donor support. Other areas of support include ensuring free, fair and violence-free local and national elections as well as strengthening newly-elected local government bodies and educating citizens in target communities about their civic rights and responsibilities.
In relation to local government, the parties agreed to: (a) support the implementation of reforms; (b) provide technical assistance and training for the capacity building for newly elected councillors and staff to improve local government operations; (c) develop and implement activities to build trust among local government bodies and citizens; and (d) support the formation of an association of local government bodies to represent local interests at the national level and achieve greater accountability to citizens.
A significant portion of the programme relates to assisting Guyana to overcome the difficulties in achieving racial harmony and societal stability by seeking to have politicians resolve ethno-political differences and instead focus on issues. In this regard, the parties agreed to provide opportunities for dialogue and consensus building by having political parties, the private sector, civil society organisations, academics and leading experts brainstorm major global, regional and domestic issues that are likely to affect Guyana’s socio-economic development. Assistance was also expected to be provided to all political parties on the use of polling, platform development, internal organisation and financing, candidate debates, constituency and public outreach.
The estimated cost of the project is $300 million. Both parties agreed to a joint monitoring and evaluation to assess progress.
Launching of the project
On 24 June 2013, the US Ambassador hosted a reception to launch the project and to welcome Mr. Bradbury. Representatives of the various political parties were in attendance, including Leader of the Alliance for Change, Khemraj Ramjattan; APNU’s Joseph Harmon and Africo Selman; and PPP/C’s Frank Anthony and Indra Chandarpal. One would have thought that the ruling party’s representation at this function would have been at a much higher level. This was perhaps the first sign of the Government’s lukewarm support for the project, notwithstanding the enormous benefits that could to be derived for the country and its citizens.
In his remarks, the Ambassador stated that the LEAD project is an innovative programme in support of Guyana’s vibrant democracy; and will engage all actors across the political spectrum in a way that supports the interests of the Guyanese people in effective and responsive democratic institutions. He outlined the various components as follows:
- Strengthening the functioning of the National Assembly by encouraging consensus-building;
- Working with civil society and the public to boost citizens’ engagement with the National Assembly;
- Working with all parties to support the legislature’s role as an effective deliberative body;
- Supporting an even greater role of women and young people in the democratic system; and
- Supporting citizen education efforts in preparation for local government elections and renewed local governance.
The Ambassador referred to the results of the 28 November national elections and stated that:
The United States recognized back in 2011 that this new scenario — in which for the first time in Guyana’s independent history — all parties had a seat at the table and an ability to shape governance, offered hope for a ‘win-win’ scenario for the people of Guyana. But we also recognized that this new configuration would pose many challenges which, if not handled with a spirit of compromise and a focus on the national interest, could lead to stalemate and frustration.
The Ambassador further indicated that in the preceding months, meetings were held with various stakeholders across the political spectrum to help shape the programme, identify priorities and chart the path forward towards successful implementation. He also referred to President Ramotar’s reaffirmation the day before of the Government’s commitment to assenting to the four local government bills that the National Assembly had approved, and to holding of early local government elections.
Sequence of events
On 18 October 2012, the US Ambassa-dor wrote President Ramotar informing him of the proposal to implement an initiative to enhance democratic processes and governance institutions in Guyana by strengthening the capacity of political parties in the National Assembly. In the letter, the Ambassador requested the President’s support in coordinating a meeting with the appropriate leaders of the ruling party to hear their insights into the proposal. One month later, the President met with the Ambassador and the USAID representative to discuss the proposal.
By letter dated 29 November 2012, the Ambassador thanked the President for the meeting and informed him that the information provided was helpful in enabling USAID to finalise the scope of work for the planned democracy and governance activity. On 20 May 2013, the Ambassa-dor wrote to the Head of the Presidential Secretariat informing him that the contract for the project was awarded to the International Republican Institute. Since then, the Government went on the offensive to publicly discredit the project on the grounds of a lack of consultation, interference in the internal affairs of the country and a violation of sovereignty, among others. The US Embassy, for its part, insisted that the project will proceed as planned.
Conclusion
It is clear from the above that the US Government did consult with the Government of Guyana before formulating the LEAD project. However, it would appear that at some point the Government began to harbour second thoughts about the project, especially as regards the award of the contract. One suspects that the Government wanted a say in the award but it was pointed out that USAID was obliged to follow the US Federal Government procurement procedures.
It is indeed regrettable that the Government chose to publicly attack the US Government and the Ambassador in particular, instead of utilizing all available diplomatic channels to resolve any differences there might have been. One collateral damage is the revoking of the work permit of a well-respected international public servant with considerable experience and expertise in working with legislators and other stakeholders in the field of governance and democracy.
It is heartening to learn that, following the temporary suspension of the project, the two sides met last week as part of a series of interactions to address the Government’s concerns. One hopes that there will be an early resolution of the contentious issues that are plaguing the execution of the project. In a sincere and conscientious reflection of the current state of affairs in Guyana from a public interest point of view, one would readily agree how badly a project such as the LEAD project is needed.
