Last year around this time, we carried three consecutive articles entitled “Governance, Transparency and Accountability: Priorities for 2014”. We had stated that 2013 was not a particularly good one, especially as it relates to the situation in the National Assembly. The combined Opposition and the Government continued to wrestle for control, without the prospect of a breakthrough to work together in a genuine effort and in a spirit of compromise and goodwill to put nation’s interest ahead of partisan politics.
We did identify three positive developments in 2013, namely: (a) the appointment of an Ombudsman; (b) the cancellation of the memorandum of understanding for the construction of a solid waste recycling plant amid public pressure; and (c) the passing of four bills relating to local government, three of which received Presidential assent. We then proceeded to identify the following priorities for 2014:
05(a) Amending the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Act to bring it in line with international standards;
(b) Holding local government elections which did not take place for 17 years;
(c) Improving financial accountability of local government organs, most of which were in significant arrears in financial reporting and audit;
(d) Ensuring meaningful consultations with all stakeholders, especially the political Opposition, on the 2014 Budget before presentation in the National Assembly;
(e) Establishing the Public Procurement Commission, as provided for by the constitutional amendment of 2001;
(f) Appointing a Chairman for the Integrity Commission to ensure its full functioning, and providing it with the necessary resources to carry out its responsibilities effectively; and
(g) Activating the Public Service Appellate Tribunal which has not been functioning since 1995.
It is with considerable regret that we have to state that no progress was made in relation to any of these issues. Indeed, as we reflect on our performance, we cannot help but conclude that 2014 was indeed an annus horribilis for governance, transparency and accountability.
Prorogation of Parliament
The Assembly went into recess on 10 August 2014 and was due to resume its sittings on 10 October 2014. However, the representatives of both sides of the House could not agree on a date. It was evident that the Administration was not eager to convene the Assembly in view of the no confidence motion that was before the House. The Speaker sought to intervene in the matter and on 27 October 2014 wrote to the Clerk requesting him to issue notices for the convening of the Assembly on 6 November 2014. The Speaker argued that the gridlock between the Government and the Opposition was untenable and unhealthy since the Assembly had not met since 10 July 2014. He also stated that there were several issues that required the immediate attention of the Assembly.
The Clerk, for his part, joined in the fray, and instead of dealing with the Speaker’s request internally, in a move hitherto unprecedented, chose to publicly decline the Speaker’s request on the grounds that the Speaker does not have the authority to set the date for the convening of the Assembly. We were then greeted with the unfortunate incident involving the removal of the Mace, the symbol of the Speaker’s authority, without the Speaker’s knowledge and approval, prompting the Speaker to declare that the Mace was missing. We were to learn later from the Clerk that he had removed it for cleaning! It was evident that a strained relationship had developed between the Speaker and Clerk, and it is indeed unfortunate that this disagreement spilled over to the public domain.
Matters dragged on, and under pressure from various stakeholders, on 2 November 2014 the President gave the green light for the convening of the Assembly on 10 November 2014. This time, it was not the Clerk who pointed out that the President is not vested with the authority to convene the Assembly but rather the Prime Minister, a situation that was promptly corrected when it was brought to attention. What happened on 10 November came as a shock to many, including the political Opposition who were caught completely off-guard. Hours before the Assembly was due to convene, the President prorogued Parliament! In an address to the Nation, the President stated that his decision was based on his belief that “the Parliamentary Opposition intends to disrupt Government’s business by forcing a debate on their No Confidence Motion”. He expressed the hope that this action would allow for possible accommodations by both sides of the House to replace an atmosphere of confrontation that might have been precipitated by a debate of the motion.
The President then invited the Opposition Leader for talks but the latter, after some degree of reflection, politely declined the invitation. The Opposition Leader’s decision no doubt might have been influenced by the following: (a) previous engagements with the President yielded no positive outcomes; and (b) any dialogue, debate or discussion on matters of public interest involving elected representatives must take place in the people’s forum, the National Assembly, and not in the dark corners of the Office of the President. Faced with this rebuff and the continuing pressures from all quarters to end the prorogation of Parliament, the President announced that he would dissolve Parliament early in the New Year in order to pave the way for fresh elections. He indicated that he did not want to disrupt the holiday spirit of citizens by making an immediate announcement. The holidays have come and gone but we are yet to hear from the President.
The latest call for an end to the prorogation of Parliament came from UK Foreign Office Minister, Mr. Tobias Ellwood, who issued the following statement:
The UK Government views with concern the continued prorogation of Parliament by His Excellency President Ramotar and calls for its earliest possible resumption. Parliament is required by Guyana’s Constitution and the Commonwealth Charter, it provides the necessary checks and balances and enables citizens’ voices to be heard. The suspension of Parliament therefore means that an essential element of a functioning democracy has been put on hold…
We also continue to have concerns that there have been no local elections for over 20 years, which is also contrary to the democratic principles of the Commonwealth Charter and Guyana’s own Constitution…
The UK calls on all stakeholders to seek solutions to the political and socio-economic challenges facing Guyana so that the country can develop in a fair, democratic and equitable way.
Holding local government elections
At the local government level, for 17 years citizens have not been able to exercise their democratic right of electing those who they wish to manage the affairs of their communities on their behalf. This is despite the constitutional requirement which specifies that local government is a vital aspect of democracy and shall be organized so as to involve as many people as possible in the task of managing and developing the communities in which they live. Earlier in the year, there were persistent calls from the political Opposition, civil society and the international community for the holding of local government elections. These were last held in 1994 and are required by law to take place every three years. The Assembly had also approved of an amendment to the related legislation to provide for the holding of elections by 1 August 2014. However, the President is yet to assent the related Bill.
Concerned about the state of local democracy in Guyana, the ABC countries (USA, Britain and Canada), along with a number of civil society organizations issued a joint statement on the matter. The statement noted that international development agencies have long recognised the tangible benefits of local democracy going far beyond the act of casting a vote, and that elections would bring “much needed reinvigoration into local government entities”. It further stated that “Effective and efficient public administration coupled with healthy local governance can drive development efforts. Local government institutions bring government closer to the people, fostering greater inclusion, civic responsibility, empowerment and participation…. It is only when people have transparent and accountable institutions at all levels of government – national, regional, and local, will they have confidence in their future”. One recalls the “feral blast” on the former US Ambassador Brendt Hardt at his farewell function after he had spoken on another occasion against the Administration’s failure to hold local government elections. Detailing the different reasons the President had given for not having the elections each time he spoke on the issue, the Ambassador asserted that the President cannot be “an inconsistent defender of the constitution”. The Ambassador had spoken the truth regardless of how painful and inconvenient it was for those in authority.
The Administration had also disbanded many of local democratic councils and replaced them with interim management committees, comprising handpicked individuals. There is overwhelming evidence of a lack of accountability in respect of these councils. The six municipalities have not had audited accounts for on average 15 years while 52 of the 65 Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDCs) did not have audited accounts for the last five years. A total of 18 NDCs have also not produced audited accounts since they were established in 1994.
Next week, we will continue our analysis of the annus horribilis that 2014 turned out to be on the governance, transparency and accountability front.
