With the exception of the period between 2011 and 2015, the political space in this country has always been occupied by the PNC and PPP alone, no matter what letters have been tacked on to their party abbreviations at one time or another. It is not just the political space they have tenanted on a seemingly indefinite basis, but the social space as well. Civil society has not flourished here, partly because politics has intruded into so many departments of life and partly because of the obsession on the part of both the main parties – but the PPP in particular – to exert control over all external organisations no matter how seemingly apolitical.
It is not that civil society organisations have not existed before; it is just that they did not evolve a tradition of joining with others and making their voices heard because, as said earlier, the arena in which they had to do so was hostile to outside viewpoints. In some cases too, the membership was split along political lines, and so public expressions of opinion on a range of subjects was avoided. When the occasional organisation such as the Transparency Institute Guyana Inc founded in 2010, spoke out on corruption, for example, it was dismissed by one or other of the parties, and its concerns ignored. Lone voices traditionally have exerted little heft in this society.
There are signs, however, that the situation might be changing. We have reached a juncture in our political history where many people, no matter how they voted in March, feel that democracy has to mean more than our two leviathans wrestling for power and once in office, unilaterally making all the decisions relating to governance.
Our editorial last Monday on the Natural Resources Fund Act had called on the government to engage both with the opposition and civil society on its provisions. Where the latter is concerned, the leader had made reference to the Policy Forum Guyana, comprising twenty-two non-governmental organisations which had raised a number of valid concerns about the act. This is really quite a novel development in this country, more especially given the list of NGOs involved, which include trade unions, indigenous women, youth, transparency and faith-based organisations. The Forum, which came into being in 2015, is perhaps only now coming to wider public attention because of the prospect of oil coming on stream, and the five-month crisis generated by APNU+AFC.
The Transparency Institute before it, had emerged from concerns about the levels of corruption perceived to exist in Guyanese society, and had announced itself “devoted to the promotion of good governance, transparency and greater accountability, and assisting in the fight against corruption.” The Forum has declared its general aim as a “strengthening [of] electoral, environmental and financial accountability.” The revulsion against corruption is evident in many societies, the case of Nigeria being the latest example, but it is also discernible here. Whether our politicians have genuinely taken citizens’ disquiet about it on board, and will really address their fears about the possible syphoning off of the oil money, or whether they are just paying lip-service to those concerns we will no doubt discover in due course.
On Friday we reported Minister of Natural Resources Vickram Bharrat as telling this newspaper that the PPP/C would not accept the Natural Resources Fund Act in its present form, and would either repeal or amend it early next year. This will no doubt be welcomed as good news by many, but especially by the Policy Forum. Much, however, depends in the first instance as to whether consultations are held with civil society on possible changes, and following that, what form the amendments or the new act takes, and whether the modifications reflect concessions to criticism of the current legislation.
President Irfaan Ali, addressing the Forecast on Latin America and the Caribbean Conference recently, gave the assurance of his government’s commitment to transparency and accountability in managing the economy, and also said that the private sector was an important partner in development. He described them as an important stakeholder saying they had an equal responsibility in terms of enhancing transparency and ensuring accountability. There is nothing wrong with that, although he had nothing directly to say about a role for civil society as well, although that possibly may have been because the conference was held by associated Chambers of Commerce and his remarks were directed at them.
However, he did speak of “openness and frankness” when dealing with governance issues, and said that his administration was going to provide answers, and was going to speak to the media. That too is heartening news, but it does not mean that Freedom House is yet ready to emerge from its traditional fortress and start talking to civil society groups in a participatory fashion, as opposed to talking to the press, et al. Given its record, it is reasonable to assume that it will not be in any hurry to help create a new political force in the country. It may very well transpire, however, that it is in no position to halt this trend.
Certainly, if we want to release some of the political pressure here it would depend first of all on restricting the ambit of those who govern us; building up autonomous institutions which cannot be dictated to either directly or indirectly by a minister of government; and having effective independent agencies which can monitor these, along with the various ministries and local authorities. Diminishing the direct power of office-holders at the cabinet level will assist in re-imagining how we might be governed, and how our current structures can be adapted to allow the participation of citizens in the decisions which affect them.
It is that participation which is one of the central concerns of the Policy Forum. Writing the month before last they said: “[E]ncouraging people to feel they belong – is what the country needs.” A new political story was required that “must reach across traditional political, class and ethnic lines, appealing to as many people as possible.” They did concede that the likelihood of electoral and other reforms coming out of the present Parliament was not great, more especially since the animosities between the parties over the previous six months had probably extinguished any lingering remnants of good will, making it impossible for them to work together. However, they maintained that, “Decision-making must be shared in a variety of ways and exercised at the lowest level at which it can be effective.”
The tenor of their statement was echoed more recently in our letter columns by a number of representatives of civil society, who concentrated on the need for constitutional, and particularly, electoral reform, which they regarded as the first priority. At the end of their letter they wrote: “To make a difference, it is imperative that civil society must play a central role in the negotiation and design of a reformed electoral system and Commission. Civil society must not be an afterthought. All around the world, the importance of a strong involvement of citizen-based entities in the reform process is recognized.”
It remains to be seen whether the two major parties are listening, and just how far the one currently in office is prepared to accommodate civil society in whatever form. Even if they are not as yet, one suspects that something has shifted in the political landscape and that there is a new element out there which is not attached to any party, but whose voice will increasingly be heard. Silencing that voice will not be as easy as it was in the past.
