Part1
Introduction
There is a connecting thread to Guyana’s ongoing narrative of multiple unfolding crises, major economic contradictions, and threats of state violence against government critics. The many unfolding crises include prorogation and its aftermath, as well as constitutional, political, legal, governance (ranging through ideology – actors – agency and ethics) and even socio-cultural ones. The economic contradictions arise from poorly formulated development policies; as seen in1) the ongoing ‘fire sale’ of our national resources on the one hand, accompanied by huge tax-expenditures and tax-giveaways on the other; 2) a growing litany of wasteful, ill-conceived, and poorly-designed projects, accompanied with little or no satisfactory publicly available socio-economic appraisals of these; 3) the runaway subsidization of state enterprises at huge taxpayer cost, accompanied with no satisfactory publicly available appraisals of these enterprises; 4) boastful government claims of rapid real GDP growth (based on questionable statistics) accompanied with burgeoning inequality, poverty, marginalization, destitution, and the ever-spreading aura of squalor in public spaces.
The threats of state violence against government critics are found in the infamous taped conversation between the Attorney General (AG) and a Kaieteur News (KN) reporter.
Starting in today’s column I present an outline of the connecting thread to this narrative.
Prorogation
05The prorogation of the National Assembly is being interrogated by pundits in the media from several aspects, including its legal and/or constitutional merit; its appropriateness and/or political correctness; and its practicality and/or governance implications. In the process of pursuing these interrogations many factors have been invoked in explanation of this action. Most offer useful insight into unfolding events.
However, for present purposes I argue that the proximate factor precipitating these untoward events simultaneously illuminates a crucial turning point in the path of Guyana’s future, in which I shall also represent that nothing less than far-reaching constitutional reform, born out of a national political settlement, can ever begin to appropriately address.
That proximate factor is manifest in the unprecedented displays of financial lawlessness, abuses and irregularities, perpetrated by the PPP/C administration since it formed a minority government after the November 2011 elections.
Financial lawlessness codified
The ‘opposition majority’ in Parliament have protested numerous instances of financial irregularity, abuse and lawlessness in the executive’s execution of the nation’s public finances. The list of these is long. In my view the ten most egregious are 1) Unauthorized budgetary expenditures by the Minister of Finance; 2) the unauthorized creation of ‘slush funds’ or extra- budgetary financial resources purposely located in bodies like NICIL,
GGMC, and the LOTTO funds, which are outside the effective purview of the National Assembly; 3) irregular and non- transparent procedures and modalities used in preparing, formatting, accounting and presenting the National Budget for public spending, revenue raising, and the creation and management of public debt obligations; 4) the payment, without reasonable economic rationale or justification, of large ‘pork- barrel’ type financial subsidies to state corporations and agencies that clearly serve partisan PPP/C political constituencies (for example GINA and GuySyCo) 5) awarding of public contracts without strict adherence to public procurement rules and provisions; 6) unauthorized use of public funds for private matters by senior political officials, including unjustified pension payments to the former President.
This abuse is the subject of a Bill approved in the National Assembly but not assented to by the sitting President; 7) the use of state resources to facilitate political activities of the ruling PPP/C; 8) the failure to establish constitutional bodies that impact on the regulation of financial, economic and social life in Guyana like the Procurement Commission, Public Service Appellate Tribunal and the Ethnic Relations Commission; 9) the political use of state financial bodies and agencies to intimidate critics of the Government, in particular the GRA and regulatory bodies that issue permits, licences, and other required certifications; and 10) related to item 9, the use of threats, political pressure and bribery to thwart disclosures from potential ‘whistle blowers.’
If proof was needed about the seriousness and extensive occurrences of such financial irregularities, readers should recall that, just prior to the prorogation of the National Assembly, the AFC had filed a police complaint against the Minister of Finance for spending $4.5 billion of public monies from the Consolidated Fund without National Assembly authorization as required for the 2014 National Budget. Indeed KN had reported at the time that the AFC claimed this “violation of law [is] the final straw that broke the AFC’s back” and led to its reporting the PPP/C’s criminal behaviour to the police, in what has been thus far a seemingly futile action.
Even before that development the Shadow Minister of Finance, Carl Greenidge had secured the passage of three Bills through the National Assembly, namely, the Financial Management and Accountability (Amendment) Bill No 24 of 2012; No 13 of 2013; and, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill No 4 of 2013, which sought to provide remedies against a) “unconstitutional provisions contained in the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003”; b) financial procedures that “effectively place Ministers above the law”; and c) such other conflicts, which “threaten the financial independence of key Constitutional Agencies.”
In a highly contentious, and I believe, wholly irregular and unconstitutional manner the President has not assented to any of the above-mentioned Bills because, as he has publicly declared, he would not assent to Bills from the National Assembly that are not approved by the PPP/C executive, despite its minority status in that body! This dictum in effect presumptuously contrives to define the legislature as a subservient creature of the PPP/C executive, headed by the President.
The above descriptions of incidents just prior to the prorogation of the National Assembly speak volumes to the accuracy of my identification of the proximate factor behind today’s distressing events. Next week I will advance my main proposition following on this observation.
