The right to make inclusive decisions – Kaieteur News

The right to make inclusive decisions


DEAR EDITOR,

The next few months are crucial for shaping the legal and policy framework that will govern Guyana for years to come. The Government has set out its intention to move forward to electoral and constitutional reform – albeit as two separate processes. Reform of the all-important Natural Resources Fund Act (NRFA) is also on the cards. Although this solution is good news, the success factor in these commitments will be how well public consultation is managed.
In a world dominated by money, consultation is vulnerable to being undermined by ‘Holding the State,’ a situation where laws and policies are effectively formulated by powerful groups and individuals for their own benefit. Guyana’s pitifully flawed political system, which already lacks voter accountability, is particularly vulnerable to capture of this nature.
For any assertion of inclusion in decision-making to be meaningful, a strong challenge is needed to capture an elite of the Guyanese State. The most significant civic achievement in this regard came in the form of Article 13 being included in the Constitutional Reform process of 2001. Article 13 guarantees that “No person shall be prevented from enjoying participation through co-operatives, trade unions, civic or socio-economic institutions of national character, in the State’s management and decision-making processes. “However, to date no significant gains have been realized from this achievement.
Article 13 represents the most advanced expression of good governance in Guyanese law. This formulation recognizes civic sector organizations as constitutional actors in making meaningful and effective decisions in public life.
The reality, however, is that governments, despite the constitutional weight of Article 13, have remained in contempt of civil society as a sector. In this respect, Guyana is lagging behind other CARICOM countries. The GHRA, for example as a local not-for-profit organization, was legally incorporated in 1979 as a Company Limited by Guarantee and was required to file company tax returns at the end of each year. Although the format has changed slightly, the alternatives to incorporation remain legal and patronizing restrictions on the voluntary sector.
Additional obstacles to the development of the voluntary sector are the absurd requirements imposed by the banking sector, which require annual financial reports and business plans at the beginning of each year as if non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are operating as businesses. Indeed, the ability of the financial sector to enforce strict anti-money laundering legislation on all citizens with a private bank account is a prime example of how ‘State capture’ works.
The business community remains the default sector for political consulting. No other sector – whether trade union, professional, faith or voluntary – enjoys any such privileged access. This position is sustained, both financially and politically, by an international community, which is well and truly nailed to the mast of market driven development. Highly attentive politicians dispense tax waivers, duty-free concessions and all sorts of subsidies to keep the sector happy, especially foreign direct investment.
This mismatch of sectoral access for decision makers: the one who has drifted over and the rest left to their own devices is the major challenge to fair consultation on laws and policy. In addition, the stress of daily life – exacerbated by the Coronavirus – also challenges the ambition of taking part in policy consultation.
What should be avoided when trying to create a more resilient civic sector is a tendency in civil society itself – encouraged by the international community – towards the creation of a civic equivalent of the Private Sector Commission (PSC). Although the captains of industry and commerce lobby the Government on behalf of the larger business community with the permission of its members suited to that sector, this is not an acceptable model for the voluntary sector.
The legitimacy of civic leadership is rooted in grassroots activism. However, ‘core groups’ and ‘steering committees’ easily replace legitimate delegation of grassroots power in apex organizations and thus marginalize the majority of members. This process is also undemocratic, leaving the isolated ‘leadership’ ripe for ‘capture’ by political actors.
More transparent and democratic urban governance trends more suited to Guyana have begun to emerge in recent years. During the past administration, the model adopted to manage the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) marked a significant positive development in governance thinking. Furthermore, the fact that the new Ministry has elevated governance to Ministerial level also signals an intention to recognize the significance of giving life to substance to Article 13 as a precursor to revitalizing the quality of broad consultation.
Executive Committee
Guyana Human Rights Association



Source