Editorial
Stabroek News
July 28, 2001

The various committees set up as a result of the Jagdeo-Hoyte dialogue process have gone about their business. Inevitably, some have approached their task in a more businesslike and timely manner than others. The important committee on borders and national security issues chaired by Ralph Ramkarran S.C. and former Brigadier David Granger submitted its report within the prescribed deadline. Others have encountered problems and delays beyond their control. In at least one case, the committee dealing with the radio monopoly and the boards of state media corporations, reliable reports suggest that progress has been disappointingly slow.

Yet in every case these committees have provided invaluable experience to the participants on both sides in working together to try to tackle real and difficult problems. They must have gained valuable insights into how hard and intractable these situations can be. It will hopefully make all involved less inclined to indulge in the kind of outright condemnations so routinely encountered in our politics and so often attributable to a lack of practical experience of the logistical, personnel and other difficulties inherent in getting things done. It will hopefully create an awareness of what it takes to set up and run programmes of any kind. Even more, it may create a willingness to give some space to the other side, some level of tolerance based on a better understanding of how hard running a country efficiently can be, how much discipline and hard work is involved.

The publication of these reports when they are submitted and their implementation lie ahead of us. In the meantime the committees will continue to do their work. As Mr Hoyte had hinted in his speech in parliament in the budget debate it has not yet dawned on most people what a significant innovation these committees represent in the normal system of governance. They do in fact signify a curtailment of normal executive powers in the areas effected and perhaps understandably the full significance of this has not yet been understood or accepted by many persons, including members and supporters of the government. Thus in one or two cases steps have been taken by ministers that are arguably incompatible with or cut across the terms of reference of the committees.

The dialogue process means in effect that where issues have been referred to committees, ministers have to advise themselves or be advised as to the effect this has on their portfolio. That could be a question of some difficulty in certain cases (how far should the housing ministry, for example, be affected in its day to day business by the existence of the depressed communities committee). In such a case, there would seem to be no reason in principle who that jurisdictional issue could not be decided either by reference to President Jagdeo and Mr Hoyte for clarification or by consultation with the co-chairmen of the relevant committee. That procedure could have avoided some of the disputes that have arisen.

But it does take time to adjust one's thinking and to recognise that though you are in office you have in fact ceded some of your power for a short period and in specific areas to bi-partisan committees. That is what this experiment in governance ultimately

means.

Despite the teething problems, there is surely still a large constituency on both sides that supports this experimental procedure of working together and that hopes that it will produce results that prove its worth and can lead to its continuation and even to its expansion.