Now that the 50th independence anniversary celebrations have ended the APNU+AFC government must begin delivering. It has completed a year in office on the wings of much goodwill but its performance has fallen well below expectation. Its standout achievement has been the staging of local government elections. Yet, even here there is much be done and explained. Appointments of regional executive officers by this government have evoked justifiable concerns about whether it was continuing along the same path of its discredited predecessor. Inevitably, acrimony has arisen. On top of this, the Local Government Commission which is meant to adjudicate on a range of crucial areas is yet to be appointed even though this government was fully aware of its primacy in the operation of the local government system. Further, the public must be made fully aware of how much has been disbursed by central government to each local authority as set out by the Fiscal Transfers Act and what arrangements are in place for the accounting for these funds.
Broadly speaking, the government will be challenged in two areas: the quality of governance and the implementation of a plan for the overall development of the country. As it relates to the former, the government has taken a serious hit from the Harmon debacle particularly since President Granger has tried to excuse it even though credible explanations are still to be provided about the trip to China and related matters. The concatenation of events connecting Minister Harmon, businessman, Mr Brian Tiwarie and the Chinese logging firm, Baishanlin has left many questions unanswered and raised public fears about senior government officials interfering with important agencies such as the Guyana Revenue Authority. Until this controversy is completely explained to the satisfaction of the public, it will be held up as evidence that the government is just paying lip service to the cry for better governance.
There are other areas where the government has a lot of explaining to do. Sometime after its accession to office, APNU+AFC appointed a committee on public spaces. In ordinary circumstances, one might ignore these appointments except that in the case of this committee it assumed enormous powers – without consultation – to the extent of making important decisions in relation to D’Urban Park. There was no explanation about the thinking behind the formation of this committee, whether it was necessary and from where it drew its authority to make decisions. The convenor and members of this committee have not appeared before the public. It was not long before this committee proved signally incapable of the tasks it assumed. The construction of the D’Urban Park stands was shockingly done, utilising poor quality materials and without sufficient concern for the safety of the thousands who were going to be there. Given the embarrassment it faced over the shoddy work on the stands, the government was forced to transfer the project to the Ministry of Public Infrastructure for completion in time for the flag-raising. No other task should be undertaken by this committee until its mandate is published and its method of operation explained.
This, however, still leaves outstanding the question of how the government arrived at its plan for a stadium-type facility for D’Urban Park – one of the last remaining green areas in the city – and one for which there would be a number of options that would be far less enveloping than the one currently on the agenda. How decisions have been arrived at has also been raised in relation to the present Carifesta Avenue works. The first inkling of these changes was contained in an advertisement inviting expressions of interests for improvements to the thoroughfare which was to be rebranded Avenue of the Caribbean. Months later the public is in the dark as to who made the renaming decision, whether any consultations were held, the extent of the works and why a divider is being installed on the road. There are other concerns about governance. Despite a solemn promise to implement a code of conduct for ministers in 100 days of taking office, the APNU+AFC administration is still to deliver. Yet, this code is desperately needed as evidenced by the conduct of Minister Harmon and questions about a conflict of interest related to Minister in the Ministry of Natural Resources, Simona Broomes and her business in the mining sector. How the Minister of Social Protection, Volda Lawrence balanced her roles as the premier child safety advocate and an executive of the PNCR has also been called seriously into question over her shepherding of an APNU+AFC candidate who had once faced child abuse charges. Woeful excuses have been given by the government for the non-appearance of the code but none of these is credible. A year in office has now passed and the absence of the code of conduct will rank as a great deception particularly when it was so important for the incoming administration to steer a clear path away from the behaviour of its predecessor.
Allied to the code of conduct is the failure of the government to move swiftly on the full activation of the Integrity Commission. This body, which is intended to receive asset declarations and other information from ministers and other senior officials had been de-emphasised under the PPP/C and has been without a chairman since 2006. As long ago as July, 2015 then Minister of Governance Raphael Trotman had stated that the government was moving to reactivate the commission. Months later, the commission still languishes. The same pertains to the Public Procurement Commission (PPC) which governing coalition partner, the AFC had made a priority while on the opposition benches. In office, not a whimper is heard these days about the PPC and the procurement system continues as is. There is yet no sign that the government is pressing for an agreement at the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament for the swift naming of the PPC commissioners which would require two-thirds support of the National Assembly.
Dialogue with the main opposition PPP/C in and out of Parliament has foundered and the government has shown no interest in catalysing the process. Whether the PPP/C has been obstructionist or not, the onus is on the government to move these talks along, otherwise many areas including constitutional reform will be bogged down. The government frequently sounds the unity message on various platforms – President Granger himself has done this – yet these words have not been matched by action. The public will wait to see how the APNU+AFC government seeks to engage with the PPP/C particularly considering that any substantive constitutional reform will require its full involvement.
Inclusiveness and appointments to boards and other entities has also raised questions about the government. Many of the early boards appointed lacked gender and ethnic balance. This has changed somewhat but there have been glaring examples where this problem persists. The national awards in February were criticised for lacking ethnic balance and for the honouring of persons – on the face of it – mostly for their contributions to the PNC and its successors. Unfortunately, Wednesday’s awards for independence continued in this vein. The APNU+AFC government clearly has much work to do to convince the public that the quality of its governance and the manner in which it makes decisions reflect a genuine commitment to rectitude, unity and nation building.
