It was Dr Henry Jeffrey in his column last week who drew public attention to something which everyone in the local political universe knows only too well, namely, that the PPP/C might have lost the general election, but it won seven of the ten regions of Guyana. The observation came in the context of the credibility gap between what the coalition had been promoting in relation to local government before the election, and its actions since. Dr Jeffrey was referring in particular to the emphasis laid during the campaign by APNU+AFC on a depolicitised local government system, and the fact that the government since then had appointed politically affiliated Regional Executive Officers.
He suggested that the reason was that like its predecessor the present administration “wants some significant say in the management of all the regions,” in addition to utilizing regional resources in a way which could redound to electoral advantage. The most egregious example, of course, is that of Dr Ramayya, who only a matter of weeks ago had announced he was leaving the AFC for which he had campaigned since its inception, because of his dissatisfaction with what the government had offered him. As it is, therefore, the impression – rightly or wrongly – has been conveyed that this was a move to assuage him.
One might have thought that if nothing else, the members of the coalition would have recalled the consequences of situations where an REO was at odds with the council – Regions Eight and Nine come immediately to mind. But it appears that with the accession to power there comes a certain measure of amnesia. How can there possibly be improved governance if central government in the shape of the REOs is in a situation of confrontation with the opposition regional democratic councils, because (to give one example) the former insists on expending resources on projects not approved by the latter?
One has to concede, of course, that identifying people of competence to fill the positions of REO no matter to which party they belong, may not be all that easy. While the coalition has placed great emphasis on building a meritocracy at all levels in the bureaucracy, even central government finds that a tall order to fill, and the situation is worse at the local level. The human resource crisis in the country may yet defeat the most well-meaning of intentions. Having said that, however, an appointee of genuine competence may not be redeemed in the eyes of opposition constituents if they regard him or her as having been installed in the post for blatantly partisan reasons.
Has the coalition so easily forgotten the feeling its supporters had of being unable to breathe before May 11, because the previous administration insisted on occupying not only all the political space available, but as much of the social space as they could manage as well? Is it so difficult for the current government to conceive that the opposition constituents also have a feeling of needing to breathe? Certainly before the election it did not give the impression that it was so lacking in imagination, and its solution, as mentioned above, was greater space at the local level.
Of course, this is not to say that going into local government elections the coalition does not have a problem. Before last week it would not have had much time to come to any carefully thought-out decisions, because the population initially had been told to stand by for elections in early December. However, following the passage of the local government elections bill last week, Gecom let it be known that it would not be ready for polls until early next year, thereby giving the coalition rather more time to ruminate on how it should proceed.
The question is whether it should go into the election as a coalition or as two separate entities. There is more than one possible answer to that question, and at this stage no one outside the parties concerned knows exactly what the trend in thinking is. One presumes there is a school of thought which feels that elections at the local level should be contested as a coalition, because if the parties stand against one another, it will cause the public to draw inferences about the stability of the arrangement at the central government level. On the other hand, the AFC, as the smaller party, might nonetheless be tempted to reassert its independent identity in a context where it has not been able to secure absolute adherence to the Cummingsburg Accord from APNU, and is seeking to counter the impression that it has little influence with its larger partner.
Between those two extremes there are a few permutations, which may or may not be under consideration by the coalition. One is to go into the election as a coalition only in selected areas. Georgetown, for example, comes to mind, because the area which corresponds to the municipality was won heavily by the coalition in the general election. In certain rural areas, on the other hand, the two parties might decide to operate separately. It would not be necessary (let alone desirable) in such circumstances to run against one another; perhaps, for example, they would divide up the areas, and advise their constituents to support whichever of the two was standing in a given locality.
Then there is the further approach which was followed by the PNCR in the 1994 local government elections, when the party said it would support any viable independent group which put itself forward at the polls. No one has suggested in public, at least, that there was any thought of reviving this for next year’s local elections, but presumably there are some locales where it might be added to the mix of possibilities. There may be other variations too which could be explored.
Given the miscalculation in relation to the REOs, how the question is settled may be contingent on whether the coalition is still genuinely seeking to allow for the maximum space possible at the local level for citizens to have greater control over matters that affect them especially in areas where the PPP/C dominates.
