An August 2021 report done for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has pointed to the challenges in framing a common vision for the country’s future and says the major parties need to devise a way to form a functioning democracy “based on power-sharing rather than a `winner takes all’ mentality”.
The Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) assessment said that democracy based on power-sharing “would ensure that the unprecedented wealth in oil reserves can be transparently and equitably managed for the benefit of all Guyanese”.
Done a year after the PPP/C government was sworn into office, the report cited weak political accountability as a problem.
“This DRG assessment identifies challenges to competition and political accountability that make consensus and inclusion elusive in the country. Foremost is weak political accountability, which influences all the other DRG elements; especially the lack of consensus on the democratic and economic future of the country. Guyana is becoming a more important partner in the region for the US and other countries while at the same time Guyana’s political instability raises concerns that the country is unprepared for its newfound wealth without a plan to manage the new revenue and equitably disburse the financial benefits”, the report said.
It added that international experience shows that transparent oversight by national authorities is pivotal to managing the risks that the oil and gas sector generates while maximizing the economic benefits.
“Effective governance of the country’s vast new wealth will be dependent upon prioritizing institutional reforms, strengthening the civil service and ensuring inclusive oversight of the country’s national development strategy. The key challenges are improving the government’s accountability and transparency across the public sector and designing appropriate national development policies that deliver equitable services to all its citizens. Trust in institutions and rule of law remain low because government effectiveness and accountability are susceptible to political pressure. Guyana’s governance and human development scores are in the lower levels of global rankings. The most significant lagging indicator is the low level of citizens’ meaningful participation in local and national decision-making”, the report added.
In its analysis of the elements making up the DRG: consensus, inclusion, competition and political accountability, rule of law and human rights and government responsiveness and effectiveness, the report said the accountability gap is readily seen in the first three.
“For the equitable distribution of the dividends of the expected economic boom and to prevent exploitation by multinational corporations, it is critical that Guyanese achieve consensus on the conceptual, structural, management and oversight functions of the state. The government must develop an open and transparent process of planning and operationalization of the SWF (Sovereign Wealth Fund). There also needs to be a fiscal and legislative framework by consensus to subvert corruption and ensure equitable distribution of the expected funds”, the report said. Since the report was prepared, the government hustled the Natural Resource Find (NRF) legislation – Guyana’s version of the SWF – through Parliament despite an attempt by the opposition to prevent its debate. The opposition has since argued that the legislation has not been legitimately passed.
The report for USAID, a key arm of the US government, said that political power continues to be concentrated in the executive branch of government as it was in the period covered by the previous 2016 DRG Assessment Report.
On the question of consensus, the report for USAID said that Guyana will continue to face unstable socio-cultural and governance conditions until ethnic inclusion in the decision-making process is institutionalised.
“The deep distrust of the party in government by the opposition has not changed much in the past five years. Stakeholders interviewed for this assessment, across social groups, continuously referred to the ethnic political divisions as the major threat to political consensus. The inability to achieve consensus is often seen as originating from post-colonial ethnic divisions and the politics of grievance, although key youth informants (under 35 years old11) did not dwell on the identity politics of their parents’ generation. The post-election violence after the 2020 election seemed sadly familiar to many stakeholders and was emblematic of deepening ethnic polarization. “Oil revenues are likely to entrench Guyana’s divisions and its long-standing ethnic identity politics,” noted one observer”, the report related.
The report for USAID pointed out that Chapter 2 of the Constitution of Guyana contains a commitment to democratic values with the objective of an inclusive democracy and provision of increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens in the decision-making processes of the state.
“Despite this constitutional provision, there are continued challenges to achieving consensus. During the “cohabitation” period of 2011-2015, major pieces of legislation passed by the opposition-controlled Assembly languished without signature by the president.
“The National Assembly, a possible mechanism for initiating reform discussions and formalizing power-sharing, has been combative at best. The 2020 parliamentary sessions commenced with Members of Parliament (MPs) trading verbal personal insults rather than engaging in civilized discourse on matters of national importance. Parliamentary decision-making could promote consensus building and compromise, but it only exacerbates the political divide. The United Nations, in a statement, succinctly captured the role of parliament in contributing to consensus in Guyana, `…Parliament is the supreme institution of citizen representation. When the margin between the government and the opposition is one or two seats, parliamentary decision-making should entail consensus-building and compromise to be inclusive of all Guyanese citizens’”, the report said.
The report also contended that Guyana’s weak governing structures and the low professional capacity of public sector officials at all levels affects racial tensions and conflict and therefore consensus-building.
On the question of inclusion, the report for USAID said that “Ethnic fragmentation continues to be a threat to inclusion and poses risks to social and political stability. Guyana’s continued focus on infrastructure and services that are limited to Georgetown and narrow coastal plain affects the distribution of political power and access to public services. Georgetown, the capital, is the seat of administration of political power and development activities have been largely centered there. As a result, access to public services favors residents in Georgetown. There is a sharp decrease in both political influence and the quality and availability of public services outside of Georgetown. Geographical inequalities perpetuate a system of patronage, where inclusion and access are often dependent on physical proximity to central power. Indigenous populations and rural citizens outside of Georgetown are acutely affected by poor infrastructure and unreliable delivery of public services.
“There were attempts by the APNU+AFC administration to decentralize some public services such as passport processing. Passport offices were opened in Region – 10 and Region – 6 to ease persons from those regions traveling to Georgetown to obtain passports. There was some decentralization of the services of the National Insurance Scheme. However, these initiatives do not adequately address the widening gap of access to critical services between Georgetown and the outlying areas”.
Since this report was published there have been other initiatives by the PPP/C government to decentralize services and a number of outreaches have been held to accomplish this.
“One positive development is the PPP/C government’s new initiatives to improve the quality of life of Guyanese outside of the capital and bring better social services to all regions of the country. The Ministry of Human Services and Social Security is conducting a review of social protection legislation and updating social protection policies, relevant to vulnerable groups including the elderly, women and children, to internationally acceptable standards. The government also stated its commitment to inclusive development goals in the areas of education, health, housing, infrastructure, and decentralization of service delivery and revenue collection. In the area of education, two new modern schools are being built outside of Georgetown under the World Bank-funded Guyana Secondary School Education Improvement Project. Also, the Ministry of Education has developed “Smart Classrooms” to bridge the gap between schools in Georgetown and on the coast and rural and hinterland schools”, the report noted.
Weaknesses in government responsiveness and effectiveness were also cited in the report.
“The governance structure in Guyana is highly centralized. The national-level centralization of power continues to affect consensus and inclusion. World Bank indicators on government effectiveness fell in 2019 despite showing gains in the previous four years. The integrity of public institutions, including parliament, police and especially the GECOM were severely tested in the past two years and during the Covid-19 pandemic. Only three aspects of doing business in Guyana have improved over the past five years: accessing credit, registering property, and protecting minority investors, while other factors have worsened. Guyana, for example, lacks the widespread use of electronic systems in its operations, reliable transportation and infrastructure. A decline in government responsiveness is especially concerning since the inflow of foreign direct investment is expected to increase dramatically due to oil and gas exports. To avoid the oil resource curse, the government must take concrete actions to manage the projected economic boom and to match citizens’ expectations about future oil revenues. Guyana does not have a good track record in establishing strong oversight via public institutions”, the report for USAID said.
It added that Guyana’s natural resources sector, which is poised to be the generator of economic growth, already exhibits signs of governance issues.
“The gold mining sector is characterized by rent-seeking behavior, landlordism, and high levels of corruption by regulatory institution officers. This has been the reality despite the GOG subscribing to international conventions such as the EITI to strengthen governance in extractive industries.
“Government accountability continues to be perceived as weak and unaccountable due to noncompliance with Auditor General recommendations25 and alleged government deception regarding major oil deals”, the report contended.
