Dear Editor,
International organizations like the European Union and the US State Department have joined local groups to call upon the PPP/C to expand inclusivity measures in their governance model. Some of these measures are incorporated in the workings of Commissions (Constitutional and non-Constitutional). However, for most Guyanese their knowledge of the operations of these bodies and how they facilitate inclusivity, is fuzzy. Guyanese seem to know more about power sharing than inclusivity.
The Parliamentary Sectoral Commit-tees (PSC: Economic Services, Security, Social Services, and Foreign Relations) and the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PPAC) have crucial decision-making authority. The PPAC is chaired by an Opposition member while 2 PSCs are chaired by government representatives and 2 by Opposition representatives. The Chairs of PSCs rotate annually. These committees can question government policies, summon government ministers, and top government officials to explain policy lapses. The Parliamentary Committees can demand corrective measures where appropriate.
Although I had earlier (10/4/24) described some mechanisms that impact inclusion, I did not define the concept of inclusivity. In my view, inclusivity is a mechanism that provides an opportunity for the Opposition, established NGOs, Private Sector, NDCs, community groups, and individuals to play a meaningful role in the public decision-making process to achieve fairness in the allocation of resources; eliminate race bias; provide ready and easy access to education, healthcare, potable water; safe neighbourhoods; reduction of poverty and dependency.
The first genuine attempt at inclusivity happened before the general elections in 1992 that marked an end to PNC dictatorship and paved the way for an inclusive formula to appoint the GECOM Chair. The Leader of Opposition is to submit the names of 6 persons, not unacceptable to the President, from which one person would be appointed as GECOM Chair. The CCJ (Caribbean Court of Justice) says that the amendment to Article 161(2) indicates that the process is designed to promote “consensus and inclusiveness.” However, most of the inclusive mechanisms in existence have been developed in 2000, as part of the Herdmanston-driven Con-stitutional Reform Process.
How the government and the opposition react to the workings of existing inclusive mechanisms is mixed: the government seems comfortable, while the Opposi-tion appears uneasy. At the constitutional bodies, the Opposition is represented but they lament the failure of the government to activate the Human Rights Com-mission. It is at the statutory bodies (outside Parliament) over which Mr. Aubrey Norton’s concerns run deep. PNCR states that although the Opposition have two representatives in the 5-member Public Procurement Commission (PPC), there is no Opposition representative on the National Procurement and Tender Administration Board (NPTAB). They argue for 2 representatives at NPTAB. To accommodate this request, the law must be amended.
In respect of the Natural Resources Fund, the Opposition complains that the 9-member Public Accountability and Over-sight Committee (PAOC), though having one nominee from the National Assembly, they have no representation; likewise on the 3-5 Board of Directors, while one nominee is from the National Assembly, they have no seat. Again, Opposition representation in these bodies could happen if an amendment to the NRF Act No 19 of 2021 is made by Parliament.
The law does not allow for opposition representatives to be on statutory (state) boards. To promote inclusivity could be through the legal process in which the relevant laws must be amended. To promote it through consultation is problematic. The government would be reluctant to appoint an Opposition representative who could potentially disrupt the operations of statutory bodies due to differing ideological approaches. While the APNU+AFC was in power they never sought to include Opposi-tion (PPP/C) representatives on state boards. Another major hurdle is that the Opposition still refers to the PPP/C government as “installed.” And Mr. Norton claims that he cannot shake President Ali’s hand because “I dislike what he is doing to my people.”
While there are other areas such as the budget process and appointment of Cabinet ministers to explore for inclusivity, the policy of taking government to the people that transcends political parties, NGOs, geographic boundaries, ethnicity, gender, and religion, is allowing the PPP/C government to obtain first-hand information from community engagements in all 10 regions. The PPP/C believes that they can identify the people’s needs through the level and intensity of their interactions with them. Frequent community engagement has become a powerful inclusive mechanism of governance. In a few years hence, it would become an institution. This is not to suggest that other measures of inclusivity should be minimized; rather they should be part of the inclusive model.
Sincerely,
Dr Tara Singh
