In a nation such as ours where politics has insinuated itself into almost all facets of public life, about the only subject area to get the Guyanese mind exercised will be of a political order. More or less anything else – with the exceptions of oil as well as certain constitutional issues and social concerns − will cause eyes to glaze over and attention to shut down. It is unfortunate that it is usually difficult to engage citizens in general outside this framework, or at least the more informed sectors of the community.
Yet if we are to create a better calibrated local universe we need to reduce the influence of politics in all departments of our public life, and circumscribe it within the boundaries that are more traditional for democracies. In addition, there are so many spheres of collective existence which are essential for the rational functioning of any society, no matter which government is in office, that it is essential these be given space to discharge their responsibilities insulated from interference by political forces.
One thing Guyanese do not need to be told is that political intrusion in any institution causes distortions. We have half a century of that experience to inform us. The problem is that civil society is weak, many of its bodies having been infiltrated, neutralised or crushed by our politicians over the decades, and it is only now that some signals of a tentative resurrection in one or two quarters can possibly be discerned. We have little tradition, therefore, of specialised or professional associations systematically watching what decisions are being taken in their field, and even when they have made proposals or registered criticisms these more often than not have been ignored by those who rule over us.
The situation is made more unyielding by the fact that the watchword in the past both for Freedom House and Sophia – but particularly for the former – has been total control. One of the many ways in which this has found expression is that in nearly every item of legislation coming before Parliament it is either the President or a subject Minister who has the role of ultimate authority. As we drift into a more complex society, we will need an increasing number of autonomous bodies and institutions to manage it; our little cadre of politicians, several of whom have limited skills, cannot do it.
For all of that one can sense a certain shift in the political air, with a greater demand for openness from our governments on the part of a segment of the citizenry, at least. This has become more pronounced with the advent of the oil and gas industry, which to date has not been handled competently or transparently by either the previous administration or this one. The shift is buttressed by the fact that the internet has brought us into direct contact with the wider globe and the norms which obtain in other places, while social media have created an international space for the immediate conveying of information on events – not all of it, it must be added, of an accurate or desirable nature – and the exchange of views.
Social media have revolutionised the whole media landscape, although neither the previous government nor this one appear to have fully absorbed what has happened, and have clung tenaciously to the state media in the belief that these organs are necessary for them to influence, even if not dominate, the public message.
It is true, of course, that commentary and criticism on the social media platforms are generally of an amorphous nature. As such, we still need civil organisations on a variety of fronts to be initiated or to emerge from the shadows if they already exist, and to draw attention to matters in the formal media space which might otherwise pass us by and to which the government can be required to respond. There have been one or two civil associations which have had a certain robust profile over the years, the Private Sector Commission being one of those which come immediately to mind. The problem here is that as a body it has never been regarded as entirely politically neutral. This has degraded the public perception of its objectivity – at least on one side of the political divide – no matter its arguments in favour or against a given issue.
It is the case that in recent times citizens have been concerned about corruption. The problem in our situation was that owing to the political grip on our public space, corruption was what the other major party was guilty of. With the exception of a small minority, there tended not to be a disposition to confront corruption on an impartial basis wherever it occurred, irrespective of party. It is a strong civil society which one hopes might eventually help cultivate a non-political morality in the wider community. These are the large issues, however. As indicated above there are also the less conspicuous ones which nevertheless are important in any functioning society but which simply do not capture the public imagination. For these one would expect special groups to keep an eye out for the rest of us and engage an administration in exchanges relating to best practices or disadvantages in a specific piece of legislation, and the like.
An example of this presented itself last week, when Parliament approved the Law Reform Commission (Amendment) Bill on February 12th. The original act had been passed by the previous administration in 2016, but it is only now that it is out of office we are beginning to learn the extent of that government’s inefficiency. While the act required the President to appoint Commissioners after consulting with the Minister, Mr Granger never appointed any Commissioner, although various other persons were hired for the Commission. As such, it was swallowing money from the Treasury while unable to function, and for four years no one in the public domain really was aware of this, or at least if they were, was prepared to make an issue of it.
The present AG sought to regularise the situation, and while his sentiments have tended in the right direction, there are still questions about some of the amendments he has introduced. It is the Guyana Human Rights Association which has drawn attention to these, not the Bar Association, which one might have thought would be the primary professional body interested in the matter. Even the current reservations have been expressed after the act has already been passed.
In fairness to the Bar Association it did raise questions in 2015 about the original law reform bill within the context of a column it used to write in this newspaper. But neither it nor any other civil society body needs a column in a newspaper to make its observations; it can just issue regular releases in the same way as the GHRA does, for example, and these will be carried by the independent press. The government ignored it in 2016, but the point is if it and every other professional or committed organization monitors what the government is doing in its field of endeavour, and consistently brings that to public attention, it will become harder for the administration to ignore such a chorus of voices. They will be giving expression to matters of concern across the board in society, and not just concentrated on those things which galvanise public attention.
Without going into the details, the GHRA had some interesting suggestions to make to the AG about how the apparent aberrations in the amended law reform act could be addressed. Traditionally, however, it has to be said that Freedom House has had a testy relationship with that particular association that is of long standing, and the PPP is likely to be antipathetic to discussing anything with it. But our politicians on all sides have to learn to rise above the pettiness which has characterised so many of their dealings with outsiders in the past. The more noise civil society makes on all subjects, the more likely it will be that the political class of all persuasions can be nudged slowly out of unilateral mode, and into a habit of consultation, whether or not they like the body concerned. This is a complex society, and we will not make progress unless there is wider participation and politicians learn to listen and accept proposals and sometimes criticisms from those outside their ranks.
