Editorial
Stabroek News
May 30, 2001

Even though it is still early days it is certain that the dialogue between President Jagdeo and the Leader of the Opposition Desmond Hoyte marked a turning away from tension. One could almost hear the nation breathing its relief. Sure, there will be difficulties ahead, but it is necessary that the dialogue should not be interrupted or broken off. One way of ensuring this is that the mode of dialogue should be instituted and deepened and widened throughout key institutions and society as a whole.

The ministries of government will soon be called upon to play the crucial role of implementing the findings and agreements reached by the committees established in the context of the Jagdeo\Hoyte dialogue. It may therefore be desirable that the ministries should become more readily responsive to new ideas and priorities in the wider society. One way in which this could be done is by the appointment of advisory or consultative committees to the ministries. Indeed President Cheddi Jagan in the early days of his administration in l993 had urged upon his ministers the appointment of such committees. Some ministries did appoint committees but these for one reason or another failed and petered out. Dr Jagan had clearly had in mind the value of drawing on the insights and experience which were available outside the ministry or the party. So why did the exercise fail?

It appears that in identifying personnel for the committees, ministers or their senior advisers preferred to go for "safe types" or to pack the group with supporters. So these bodies become little more than echoes of the voices of the ministers. In this way the opportunity to draw on the advice of professionals, academics and representatives of NGOs was missed.

Another reason for failure was that the exercise was not taken seriously by the ministries themselves. Meetings were not called at regular intervals. There was no preparation of a suitable agenda and "raw material" instead of specially prepared papers was thrown at the committee members, often at the last moment.

Yet the advisory or consultative group could clearly be a most effective way of drawing on the experience and expertise available outside the public sector and of widening the dialogue. It is an idea which should be urgently revisited.

Another way of widening the dialogue is to promote and take seriously the identification of shadow ministers by the Opposition. A shadow Minister of Health or of Foreign Affairs or Amerindian development should then routinely be accorded the right of being briefed on current matters at regular intervals by the appropriate government ministers. The representatives of small parties should be asked to identify specific interests and should be accorded similar access.

It is often essential that Ministers of Government should participate in overseas conferences on urgent international issues which impact sometimes severely on Guyana. Is it not possible for members of the Opposition or NGOs or a particular trade union to be included from time to time in the Guyana delegates? It is unlikely that there will be many instances in which a sharp division of views would make it impossible to field a coherent delegation if non-government personnel were included in the delegation.

Such participation, which would be an important step away from the winner take all approach, would expose the opposition and NGOs to the external circumstances which so often constrain government behaviour and policy and should therefore lead to better understanding of the difficulties which, although unspoken, confront a government.

Of course it could be argued that making delegations inclusive would be an expensive exercise. On the other hand, might the building of consensus not be worth the while when balanced against the background of the disorder and loss of life and property and investment which is the price paid by a sharply divided society.