Dear Editor,
Now that new local government councils are in place, the pivotal challenge representatives and their constituents will face involves the nature and quality of the representation itself. How will or should these representatives represent? How responsive will the councils be to the voices of their constituents? And how will councilors choose to listen to these voices from issue to issue?
Guyana’s political system and culture have molded our representatives (whether in parliament or councils) into trustees. Trustees use their personal judgment to act on behalf of those they represent. Democratic theory accepts this form of representation as legitimate even should the parliamentarian or councillor neglect to first ascertain the opinions or interests of his constituents. Representatives-as-delegates, in contrast, reflect the expressed preferences of the represented. Delegates act largely as emissaries, a role that requires them to confer with the constituency. Recent complaints from residents in several parts of Georgetown over the unilateral actions by their council clearly signal that the public demands a role in decision-making. People therefore want councilors to behave more as delegates. If this analysis is correct, then two challenges, at least, emerge. First, councillors-as-delegates (particularly those representing constituencies—which number as many as nine in most NDCs) will face conflicts inherent in standing for one piece of the whole and, simultaneously, for the whole itself. Secondly, each constituency will encounter situations where its delegate, from time to time, votes independently of its expressed wishes.
I live in Region 4, which has seven regional MPs and thirty-five RDC members, all of whom form a system that must, quoting the constitution, “involve as many people as possible in the task of managing and developing the communities in which they live”. But I (and the vast majority of fellow citizens, I suspect) have low expectations that this constitutional ideal will be realised. Logistics, resources and political outlook conspire to make these actors distant or unknown trustees.
Municipalities and neighbourhoods, in contrast, are better positioned to give more meaning to representation. Being smaller geographic and social units, their councillors can act more as delegates. They have easier options (acting collectively or individually) to determine the wishes of constituents by, for example, holding community meetings and hearings, doing walk-abouts, constructing and using email listings, and conducting surveys. The local government legislation even makes provisions for non-elected residents to participate as non-voting committee members. Stated differently, smallness allows councils to lean towards direct democracy (channeling the voices of the people straight into the decision-making process) as opposed to towards representative democracy (with the emphasis on the involvement of substitutes).
The in-the-face nature of council activities, if nothing else, should force this approach on municipalities and NDCs. My experience two weekends ago illustrates this reality. The noise of an excavator working on the engineering reserve that borders my residence in the BV/Triumph NDC prompted my instant investigation, which discovered that the then outgoing council had secret and prohibited plans for the reserve.
Luckily, several newly elected councillors intervened to put a halt to proceedings, thereafter promising to adopt a consultative and law-abiding approach in community affairs.
Which brings up the accountability question of how do residents ensure councils are responsive and responsible, and their serious failings corrected or punished between elections? Circumventing an extended discussion here, I will only state that this responsibility will fall on the residents themselves, the Local Government Commission, the Ministry of Communities, and, informally, the high command of the political parties.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
