Seventh Chancellor of the University of Guyana and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
This piece invites the attention of all sectors of society in Guyana: Government Opposition, Civil Society, and others. The issues it refers to involve the responsibility of successive Governments and, indeed, of the wider society.
One recognizes that the country is at what could be a defining moment in its history, with newly-found resources, bold new initiatives by the President, an Opposition that has so far had limited engagement in substantive policy debates, a precarious lack of consensus on the system of governance of the country, and rising civil society critiques of Government policy, notably in the environmental sector.
We draw attention here to a major new global report published in the past few days, The Atlas of Impunity, and we indicate the ratings attributed to Guyana in it. The Atlas and its ratings deserve the attention of all of Guyana. It is well documented and well thought through.
The Atlas of Impunity is a joint effort by former UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband, President of the International Crisis Group; the Chicago Council on Global Affairs; and the highly-regarded think-tank, the Eurasia Group. The report provides a rigorous definition of impunity across five key dimensions of national and international life: unaccountable governance, conflict and violence, abuse of human rights, economic exploitation, and environmental degradation.
Impunity, is defined in the Atlas, as the exercise of power without accountability, and “Impunity thrives when the imbalance of power is so great that the powerful think they do not have to follow the rules”. The authors of the report consider that the lens of impunity aptly capture the issue of governance and human rights. It also contemplates issues of economic inequality and environmental damage.
The Atlas of Impunity is built on 67 statistical indicators drawn from 29 validated sources. It measures impunity across five dimensions: first, Unaccountable governance – Respect for the rule of law and responsiveness to citizens. Second, Abuse of human rights – Adherence to international human rights treaties and use of violence for political coercion. Third, Economic exploitation – Corruption, poor treatment of workers, and relationship between economic status and civil and political liberties. Fourth, Conflict and violence – Participation in conflict abroad and levels of violence within a country. Fifth, Environmental degradation – Contributions to the climate crisis, resource depletion, and pollution.
Overall, the Atlas scores 197 countries on a 0-5 scale across each of these five areas of impunity and accountability and then gives them an overall impunity score, with higher scores indicating more impunity and lower scores signifying less impunity. On the basis of these scores, the Atlas ranks countries, placing those with the highest levels of impunity at the top of the table (Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen) and those with the lowest levels at the bottom (Finland, Denmark and Sweden).
Some of the striking findings of the data analysed in the Atlas include the following: first, the legacies of colonialism and the slave trade are correlated with higher impunity scores. Second, environmental degradation occurs where impunity continues to thrive, even among otherwise accountable societies. Third, violence against women and gender-based discrimination, codified in law or by societal norms, are global problems.
Fourth, the US is closer to the median than top performers, though it ranks much better than Russia or China. Fifth human rights are being abused and accountability is falling even within democracies: India, Israel, Malaysia, and the US are all democratic countries that perform well on the accountability of governance dimension, but substantially worse on the abuse of human rights dimension.
A central lesson of the Atlas is that “We are all responsible for building a more accountable future”. Impunity thrives in darkness: “One of the troubles of the last decade has been the spread of darkness at a time when there are so many resources to shed light.”
Guyana has certainly passed through darkness – which might help explain the ratings assigned to it in the Atlas of Impunity. On a scale of one to five, Guyana’s overall impunity rating is 2.25, placing it at number 91 on the overall list.
Guyana’s rating on the issue of unaccountable governance is 2.48 out of five, placing it at number 106 among the countries rated.
On the issue of conflict and violence, Guyana is rated at 2.20, placing it at number 57 in the overall ratings.
On the issue of abuse of human rights, Guyana’s rating is 1.64, placing it at number 105 among the 197 countries rated.
On the issue of economic exploitation, Guyana is given a rating of 1.80, placing it at number 95 among the countries rated.
And, finally, on the issue of environmental degradation, Guyana is given a rating of 3.40, placing it at number 67 of the 197 countries rated.
As mentioned earlier, on a 0-5 scale across the five areas, higher scores indicate more impunity and lower scores signify less impunity.
The foregoing ratings indicate positive as well as negative features. At an overall impunity rating of 2.25 Guyana is in the median range among countries rated. On accountability in governance, its score is at the median range, though less good, at 2.48, bearing in mind that higher scores indicate poorer performance.
On conflict and violence, Guyana’s score of 2.20 is again at again at median range. On the issue of human rights, Guyana’s score is good, at 1.64. On the issue of economic exploitation, Guyana’s score at 1.80 is rather good in the circumstances.
But when it comes to environmental degradation, Guyana’s score, at 3.40 is the worst of all the five categories. This is something that should catch the attention of the Government.
Guyanese: Government, Opposition, and Civil Society, will evaluate these scores for themselves. Two conclusions suggest themselves: first, while there is need to strive for improvement in all five categories, there are some respectable, positive, scores in the ratings. Second, there is a red light flashing when it comes to environmental degradation.
Guyana can, and should, strive to improve its scores, and all sectors of the society would need to contribute to this: Government, Opposition, and Civil Society. This is a joint responsibility. Government can lead, and others can contribute. The President, who has so much on his young shoulders, would do well to reflect on Guyana’s ratings in the Atlas of Impunity.
