There are indications of significant change in tackling challenges to democratic governance in Guyana by the APNU+AFC government, but there are also reasons for concern, according to a USAID-funded report which has warned that time is of the essence and urged constitutional reform.
The main challenge to democracy, human rights, and governance in Guyana is its legacy of political parties organised along ethnic lines, of single party dominance, and its centralized patron-clientelist system that contributed to weak, unaccountable, unresponsive, and ineffective government institutions, the report, Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) Assessment of Guyana, said. “The dysfunction in (Guyana’s) political system has led to a feeling of hopelessness among many Guyanese, high levels of emigration, and insecurity,” the report declared. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) had contracted a DRG Assessment of Guyana which was intended to assess the political change and democratization in Guyana, consider the US Government’s operational and programmatic environment, and develop strategic and programmatic recommendations to address the core problem(s) DRG identified in the assessment. The final report was released in March.
According to the report, governance in Guyana has been characterized by long periods of one-party rule, ethnically divisive politics, inefficient government, and corruption. However, it said, the May 2015 election of a multi-ethnic, reform-minded coalition brought a fresh opportunity for Guyana to move toward a more responsive and accountable state of governance.
“However, this democratic outcome is far from certain. The coalition government faces deep-seated legacies of single party domination; politically driven ethnic divisions; and a centralized patron-clientelist system with weak, unaccountable, and unresponsive government institutions. Changing this system will not be easy, especially for a tenuous political coalition, inexperienced in governing and confronted by an entrenched opposition and a frustrated population with unrealistically high expectations,” the report warned.
It said that it was too soon to tell how this transition will end during the assessment and whether reforms will stall. “Guyana’s past demonstrates that these windows do not remain open for long as engrained practices take over and the government assumes the attributes of the past,” the report added.
It noted that President David Granger and the coalition government enjoyed a honeymoon period that is now largely over. “The APNU+AFC coalition is stable and expected to last until the 2020 election, although they need to maintain cohesion and manage tensions arising between the two parties. They ran on a reform platform that promised constitutional reforms and the holding of long-delayed local elections…. They say the right things about reforms, including asking donors for DRG support that had been resisted by the former PPP/C government. However, it is still too early to tell if this reform resolve will last,” the report continued.
It noted that political missions have moved swiftly to support the reform efforts diplomatically and through discrete mission funds and urged development agencies to follow suit to take advantage of these opportunities quickly to deepen democratic development in Guyana.
In particular, the report urged USAID to provide immediate assistance to support the constitutional reform process, bring balance to Guyana’s governance, and strengthen local government and its first elected local governments in 23 years. “This should be followed by a bilateral DRG program for the medium- to long-term that could help institutionalize the reforms and ensure their consolidation,” the report suggested.
As it relates to the key challenges to democratic governance, the assessment found problems in all five elements of democracy, human rights, and governance. The most critical were in the areas of competition and political accountability and government responsiveness and effectiveness.
In terms of competition and political accountability, the report noted that historically, political competition has been dominated by two main parties aligned largely along ethnic lines.
Stiff opposition
“Elections incite and exacerbate ethnic tensions as the de facto winner-take-all system promotes one-party rule. Power is centralized in the executive and the formal check and balance system is marginalized by ineffective/nonfunctioning institutions, patron-client relationships, and corruption,” the report documented.
It noted that success of the APNU+AFC coalition in the 2015 elections may signal a shift toward more issue-based politics, but it faces stiff opposition from the losing party. The introduction of single member seats in the March 2016 local elections offers an opportunity for change, it added. As it related to government responsiveness and effectiveness, the report acknowledged that the state is well formed, established, and functioning, but heavily centralized with cumbersome procedures and institutional arrangements.
“Too-few resources are used for public good. Rural and hinterland communities are disproportionately affected. Institutions that should promote service delivery and accountability are weak or nonfunctional. There is no real devolution of authority to local government and even the most localized decisions are taken by the central government,” it asserted.
In terms of consensus, the report noted Guyanese have a shared political culture and the belief that democracy is the only legitimate form of government, but long-standing acrimony between the PPP/C and PNC/R makes achieving consensus on policies, committee appointments, and constitutional reform priorities difficult at the national level. However, it suggested, social capital and the shared desire for change facilitate consensus building at the regional and local levels.
As it relates to inclusion, the report pointed out that no group is legally excluded or formally disenfranchised. “However, there is perceived and real ethnic exclusion from the political processes and social discrimination based on race, gender, socio-economics, and sexual orientation. There is also de facto discrimination of indigenous people and those who live in the periphery in terms of access to social services and economic development,” the report revealed.
On the issue of rule of law and human rights, the report disclosed that Guyana’s legal framework provides for the rule of law and protection of human rights but implementation is problematic. “Citizen access to justice and quality of services depends on physical location and personal situation. National human rights institutions are not fully established or effective and criminality and violence are prevalent. Gender-based violence (GBV) is a major problem as is trafficking in persons and drugs,” it declared.
The report drew attention to the fact that the election of a multi-ethnic, multi-party coalition brought a fresh opportunity to Guyana to make these substantive democratic reforms that could transform its political system and make it more effective, accountable, and inclusive.
“USAID should take advantage of the window of opportunity that is open now to support the reform process that is underway that can strengthen Guyana’s governance, balance the power of the executive, start the devolution of power to local government, and ensure a more accountable and responsive government. If adopted and implemented, these democratic reforms can address the overcentralization of power, address politicized and nonperforming institutions that were found during the assessment, and increase governance effectiveness and responsiveness,” it continued. “However, this outcome is far from certain. There are indications of significant change, but there are also reasons for concern. Time is of the essence as this window may not be open for long,” the report declared.
Closing window
It noted that the assessment team estimates that the window will close within the next 18 to 24 months as the focus shifts to the 2019 local elections and 2020 national elections. Some believe it will close even sooner if not supported, citing rising citizen anger and impatience against the slowness of the reforms and signs of business-as-usual, the report continued.
The assessment team recommended that USAID focus on a two-tiered strategy. “In the near term, focus on the reform processes, key oversight mechanisms, information flow, and newly elected local authorities.
In the medium to long term, reinstate a DRG program that can make a more substantive contribution to strengthening Guyana’s democratic institutions and system,” the report suggested.
In terms of its recommended programmatic priorities for USAID, the report lists constitutional reform as the main one urging support for the current reform process and the implementation of previous constitutional reforms. “These can help balance the power of the executive, address the winner-takes-all nature of the political and electoral systems, and devolve power to local government,” it declared.
“Near-term priorities are reform content and consultations, constitutional referendum (if held), and constitutional commission appointments. Mid- to long-term priorities are the implementation of the new constitutional reforms and strengthening the Human Rights and Integrity Commissions that provide oversight and citizen protection,” the report documented.
It also recommended support for strengthened checks and balances through the strengthening of key institutions and increasing access to information and evidence-based decision making. “This can help increase accountability; balance the dominance of the executive; address issues of cronyism, impunity, and corruption; and ensure the rule of law is applicable to all,” it added.
It identified near-term priorities including assessments in the key areas of rule of law, electoral system, and economic governance and consideration for a small flexible fund to support quick-impact, low-cost changes within key institutions. Mid to long-term priorities include parliamentary oversight and outreach.
The report also recommended strengthened local governance through support for the devolution process; capacity building for local institutions; and increasing citizen engagement to ensure local government has the authority, resources, and capacity required to be responsive to its communities, serve their needs, and counter the top-down, overly centralized nature of government.
Near-term priorities are the Local Government Commission, newly elected local officials, and constituency engagement. Mid to long-term priorities include supporting the training curricula for local officials, constituency engagement, and information on and monitoring of the 2019 local elections, the report proposed.
