Dear Editor,
While in opposition, President Granger was a passionate campaigner for local democracy. Both in and out of Parliament, he emphasized the need to allow local leaders at the level of the villages to take charge and manage the affairs of their local communities. In opposition, his party pressed relentlessly for the enactment of the four Local Government Bills. In the Select Committees, their contributions had a common thread. They canvassed for a reduction of ministerial power and influence over local democratic organs, while at the same time, advocating for greater financial independence and functional autonomy for these organs. They argued for the urgent establishment of a bi-partisan local government commission, in which is to be vested the plethora of power which the Minister now enjoys. They were so aggressive on these matters that it was clear to many at the time that they never expected to be the next government. In this equation, one cannot exclude their sudden and emphatic advocacy for the holding of local government elections, the postponement of which they supported in the National Assembly for the 15 years, immediately prior to that. After 2011, local government elections suddenly became a major priority.
While in government, during the campaign for the 2016 local government elections, the posture of the President and his government remained the same. They advocated for the empowerment of local leaders; they argued that these leaders must be allowed to determine and govern their affairs at the level of the local democratic organs and that central government’s input must be minimal; they advocated for the newly elected local democratic organs to enjoy financial independence and functional autonomy.
Then came the local government elections on March 18, 2016. There is no doubt that its results flabbergasted the President and his government. The APNU was devastated at those elections. That they were in government for a year and their diehard supporters still in a state of euphoria, after the 2015 general election victory, it was a terrible blow to their political psyche and ego. The PPP won landslide victories in 48 of the 71 local authority areas. In 6 of the remaining areas, the PPP tied with the APNU. In the remaining areas, the APNU was forced to share the spoils with independent groups, including, in areas where they boast great political strength. In short, the APNU was thrashed at those elections.
Since the local government election results, one has witnessed an absolute change in the approach of the government to the newly elected local organs. The rhetoric that we heard prior to those elections about local leaders taking charge of their affairs; that they must be allowed to do so without interference from central government; that they must be functionally autonomous and financially independent, all quickly vanished. This rhetoric was quickly replaced with exactly the opposite in actions. The government has since been pursuing a policy flagrantly designed to denude these newly elected organs of all autonomy and independence, and when there is resistance, to frustrate and stifle these organs in the discharge of their functions by withholding monies and constructing bureaucratic red tape ‒ all in an effort to make these organs politically beholden to central government. This is nothing short of an onslaught upon local democracy and a callous flouting of the will of the electorate as expressed at the local government elections. I will demonstrate my point with a few examples.
- Perhaps the most conspicuous example of this government’s authoritarian attempt at thwarting local democracy is the vulgar and manifestly unlawful act of Minister Bulkan’s handpicking of chairpersons in the five tied NDCs and handpicking the Mayor for the municipality of Mabaruma, a shameless violation of the relevant statutory provisions. The clumsy strategy of the Attorney General to delay the hearing and determination of the cases filed challenging Bulkan’s actions and the contrivance of frivolous and vexatious legal arguments, attempting to justify those actions, only compound this anti-democratic perversity.
- Another example of the attempt to control these local government organs, is the use of the Town Clerks, in the case of municipalities, Regional Executive Officers in the case of RDCs and Overseers at the level of the NDCs ‒ all servants/agents of the Minister, to micro-manage, frustrate and torpedo the work of these elected bodies. Only recently, their own Dr Ramayya resigned as REO of Region 6, citing pervasive corruption and the controlling power of the Minister, who criticized him for not approving works done by contractors, although according to Dr Ramayya, these works were substandard. NDC councillors countrywide with whom I spoke, informed me that decisions of the council are not being carried out by the Overseers unless they receive the approval of the Minister. I have been told that no money can be spent without the prior approval of someone authorized by the Minister. I am aware that the NDCs received their statutory subventions almost four months late and that their budgets were only approved within the last two weeks. These are deliberate strategies employed by the Minister to undermine the functioning of these elected bodies.
- Six months after the local government elections, this government is still to submit its nominees to the Local Government Commission. As a result, this much touted commission remains on paper only. The government is deliberately delaying the establishment of this commission, because once it becomes operational, the Minister and by extension the government, loses a tremendous amount of power. To the authoritarian, the loss of power is like the loss of life itself.
- The democratic line demarcating the Georgetown City Council from the government has become so blurred that the council is operating almost like a department of government. The government gives policy directions to the council with seamless ease; Cabinet reviews council’s decisions without anyone batting an eyelid; the Attorney General, nonchalantly, reviews contracts entered into by council and renders to the council legal advice in relation thereto. In this incestuous matrix, all seem blind to the assault being committed upon local democracy. Sadly, in the milieu, there is no proverbial one eyed man to take the throne.
The cumulative impact of this all is that democracy is under siege at the level of the local democratic organs, as it is in the Parliament and elsewhere. But alas, what can one expect from a government whose leader, two weeks ago, reiterated his idolatrous admiration of and strong commitment to the politics, ideas and ideals of Forbes Burnham – a politician whose lack of democratic credentials equals none in the English-speaking Caribbean.
Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP
