President David Granger’s perspective on the implications of a stronger local democratic framework for the advancement of Guyana’s economic fortunes and for the welfare of the people of Guyana was set out in an absorbing even if somewhat unconventional presentation to the Annual General Meeting of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry (GCCI).
It would not be surprising if what he had to say might have caught some his listeners off guard. For a start, he chose, in some measure, to dwell in what one might call an intellectual comfort zone, providing as he did an interesting history lesson on the development of our townships and the need for them, in this the 50th year of the country’s independence
Perhaps the President’s most poignant point had to do with the protracted survival of what he termed the “compound mentality” of local government, a model which he described as “anaemic and archaic” and which, he said, after 50 years of independence is still reflective of a mentality that “emphasises control rather than consultation and collaboration with the residents of the district.”
The President could hardly have been more correct in this regard. Truth be told, local government administration in Guyana could hardly be equated with local democracy. Communities, for the most part, have been managed (frequently mismanaged) by bureaucrats who do not even make the remotest pretence at being accountable, the extent of their competence measured in what, across the country, has been the rot and ruin into which many communities have fallen. More than that – and the President makes this point as well – the inability of the local government regime across the country to create meaningful, revenue-generating and job-creating economic activity has meant that the survival of these inefficient local institutions have become dependent on ‘handouts’ from the state coffers.
In finding a nexus between the March 18 local government elections and potential economic transformation, President Granger notes that those elections ushered in new towns at Bartica, Lethem and Mabaruma and that Mahdia will follow in short order. They are, he said, “intended to wean local authorities off of central government dictation, domination and dependency. They will allow for a more collaborative and forward-looking model of governance.”
Here is where we have to be cautious. The fact that the results of the local government poll reflect, to a significant extent, voter cleavage to traditional political loyalties, raises questions as to whether or not the “dictation, domination and dependency” to which the President refers can be removed. Interestingly, it is, in large measure, President Granger’s administration, that must provide that answer.
That having been said there is much to be hopeful about in the President’s “new model” of local democracy which, he envisages, “will instil a capital town mind-set that emphasizes the role of towns in moving beyond providing traditional municipal services.
The new emphasis should be on promoting business, driving economic development and giving leadership to our regions. That, of course, is easier said than done and one suspects here, the President is pointing a way rather than laying down an axiom. Some of the questions that arise have to do with the challenges associated with instilling a capital town mind-set in a local administration that has grown accustomed to a chronic dependency on central government. Accordingly, one expects that if local democracy is to grow and prosper in a manner envisaged by the President then it will clearly require a significant input from the local business communities.
At the same time there will be a need for a change in attitude amongst local politicians who – with the best will in the world – will find the chore of weaning themselves off of taking their cue from a political bureaucracy located at the centre.
The President’s vision for revolutionizing local democracy, particularly what he sees as its role in developing the economy at the local as much as the national levels provides much food for thought. Its actualization, however, is still dependent on transforming a mainstream political culture, which has grown accustomed to and, frankly, comfortable with control at the centre.
