On Wednesday 6th July 2016 president of the Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association (GMSA), Mr. Eon Caesar, told Stabroek News that the association was notified by the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) that the latter had decided to enforce import taxes on items ineligible for exemption under the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas, which governs trade relationships between Caribbean Community states. For some years, the previous PPP/C government had not enforced these taxes and not surprisingly therefore, Mr. Caesar and members of his organisation were most upset.
The introduction of taxes has important implications for producers, consumers, employees, etc., and what must have been even more galling for the GMSA is that no one appeared to be clear as to why the taxes were so suddenly introduced and without any consultation. Thus, while claiming that he and his organisation were willing to work with the powers that be to quickly resolve the matter, Mr. Caesar pointed to some dire consequences for the manufacturing sector and consumers if the matter was not quickly addressed. “This is a significant issue for the local manufacturing sector as foreign competitors would be able to offer products at cheaper prices creating an uneven playing field” (Ibid.).
No one seems to know what, if any, exigencies gave rise to the taxes being so hurriedly introduced. It was not, for example, communicated whether or not the GRA was approached by regional stakeholders threatening sanctions. Even the Stabroek News reporter appeared baffled: “It is unclear what triggered the move to enforce the taxes, which have not been applied for decades” (Applying import taxes to bring higher prices. SN 08/07/2016).
Confronted by irate stakeholders wanting an explanation, it was Minister of Business Dominic Gaskin who explained, claiming that compliance was necessary if the country is not to be exposed to the kind of costly Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) litigation the PPP/C brought upon itself by refusing to adhere to Caricom regulations. He then sought to blame the PPP/C for the introduction of the taxes for according to him, that government should not have turned “a blind eye to the laws and to our treaty obligations and expose us to all sorts of legal consequences” (Ibid.).
The CCJ’s decisions aside, if the various forensic audits of government processes under the PPP/C have proved nothing else, they certainly have demonstrated what a significant proportion of citizens already knew, namely, that good governance had totally fallen away under the PPP/C. However, the present regime came to office substantially on a platform of good governance. Section 3 of its 2015 manifesto is not only so called but also states, “The APNU+AFC Coalition has pledged, under the Cummingsburg Accord, to pursue inclusive democracy making full use of stakeholder fora to test, plan and monitor the implementation of policies in key areas.”
Furthermore, while it is true that the PPP/C should have abided by the rules, in the context of Caricom’s trade relations, it is most unlikely that, this matter having been brought to the attention of the minister after years of non-compliance, regional stakeholders would have been so unreasonable as not to give the government some time to rectify the situation by communicating with its national stakeholders and attempting to devise an agreed solution.
In passing, this is not the first time that this kind of approach has been deployed by this government. For example, after years of governments not enforcing the law with regard to closing hours, out of the blue and with little concern for persons who could suffer severe economic loss as a result of his precipitous action, the minister of public security decided that night spots should be closed at 2pm.
Since I am not one of those who believe that the regime and/or persons within it are generally mean-spirited, why this scant regard for stakeholder involvement by a regime which on a daily basis plies us with the need for social inclusion and good governance? I believe that the answer lies in the fact that the organic relationship between these concepts is not properly understood and embedded and that the essential Judeo/Christian social environment within which most of us have been weaned takes advantage of this situation.
Firstly, while demanding our adherence to the rule of law within an impartial legal framework, a commitment to good governance also requires consultation to understand stakeholders’ interest and to reach a broad consensus of what is in the best interest of the group and how this can be achieved in a sustainable and prudent manner. It means that the processes implemented by the government should meet the needs of its stakeholders while making the best use of the resources at its disposal.
Accountability is a key tenet of good governance and generally an organisation is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Direct or representative participation is also vital and needs to be informed and organised with freedom of expression at its core.
Good governance is also about transparency: information should be distributed as widely as possible in easily understandable forms to those who will be affected by governance policies and practices and decisions and their enforcement should be in compliance with established rules and regulations (http://www.governancepro.com/news/).
Rather than simply the implementation of rules, good governance is more of an administrative environment that is almost totally concerned with facilitating stakeholder participation and protecting stakeholder interests. As such, it places severe limits on unilateral bureaucratic action on occasions even when, as in the cases under discourse, such actions are authorised by the law.
Secondly, it appears to me that Mr. Gaskin and possibly his government are victims of our essential Judeo/Christian upbringing, which usually enmeshes us in a variant of ethical/legal formalism that holds that if something is wrong or right, it is wrong or right all the time and the good person must seek to immediately make it right.
Of course, in modern political administration with its demand for good governance, how ‘immediate’ will always be the question and one’s moral concerns must be properly aligned to the real day-to-day interest of one’s constituency. In other words, personal or collective moral absolutes have little, if any place, in representative political governance!
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
