Immediately after their identification of our social and economic development objectives, the authors of the National Development Strategy (NDS) frontally addressed the problems of governance in Guyana. They did so because they were convinced that there could be little lasting and sustainable progress in our country in the absence of good governance. In examining and analysing the status of governance in Guyana, they adopted the United Nations' definition of the concept: "Governance is the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country's affairs. Governance comprises the complex mechanisms, processes, relationships and institutions through which citizens and groups express their interests, exercise their rights and obligations, and mediate their differences. Good governance is characterised by participation, transparency, accountability, effectiveness, equity and strict adherence to the rule of law"'.
The NDS emphasises that bad governance inhibits social and economic development in several ways. First, it creates a tension between the government and those who perceive that they are being excluded from government, or are being treated unfairly by the legal system or by law enforcement officers. The results are unnecessary strikes that occur too frequently and persist for too long; other forms of economic sabotage; frequent street marches, demonstrations and other types of protests; and a general environment of disorder and upheaval. Second, there is often a reduced respect for established authority. Laws are therefore flouted as if to countervail against the illegalities that are intrinsic in bad governance.
Third, it is often accompanied by corruption. As a consequence, there is a loss of revenue, over-expenditure on development programmes and, in general, so inefficient an execution of projects that their poor quality leads to their early deterioration and, ultimately, to high maintenance and repair costs. Fourth, where transparency does not exist, there is often a perversion of economic choice with all its concomitant ills.
Fifth, there is an overall loss of growth and development throughout the State. And sixth, a country that acquires a reputation for bad governance often does not attract investment because of the high unofficial rents that are often demanded in such places.
The perspicacious among readers would readily appreciate that many of the characteristics and disadvantages of bad governance, which have been adumbrated in the preceding paragraph, have prevailed in Guyana for much of its history.
We propose in the remainder of this article to devote our attention to participatory democracy in our country. Other aspects of governance will be examined in subsequent articles in this series.
Given the nature of the country's history and its current constitution, it should not be surprising to learn that there is little participation by Guyanese non-governmental groups and other sections of civil society in the formulation of public policies and in their implementation. Opposition parties are not routinely and formally consulted on legislative matters (although there are signs that this is now changing), nor are the trades unions and the private sector.
It seems to be the rule that such organizations are asked to participate in the decision-making processes only in times of crisis, particularly when there is industrial strife and political violence. Successive Guyanese governments have failed to appreciate that if consultation and participation were made essential stages in the exercise of governance, the frequent confrontations which have become an integral part of the country's life would be considerably reduced, if not eliminated.
The NDS argues that although participation is of extreme importance in all countries, it is absolutely necessary in Guyana in which every disagreement is given a racial connotation, and where problems, which in other communities would be considered to be normal political or industrial disputes, are intensified and made fearful by the racial cleavages which prevail in our society. It therefore recommends that consultation and participatory procedures should be institutionalized in all aspects of government, and at all levels. It urges that the trades unions, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and civil society as a whole, should be seen as partners in the country' s quest for equity and sustainable development.
The roles of the trades unions, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations are well known. It might be useful, however, to explain what is meant by the term "civil society". In the NDS the concept embraces more than mere society. In that document it is used to describe that "part of society that connects individuals with the public realm and the state-it is the political face of society. Civil society organizations channel people's participation in economic and social activities and organize groups to influence public policies".
It is perhaps true to assert that in Guyana there is little evidence to suggest that there exist bodies of citizens which might be described as "civil society groups" as delineated in the NDS. The history of governance in Guyana demonstrates that the country's very origins; its various Constitutions; the political systems under which it has been governed, culminating in a Westminster-type arrangement; and its political configurations, have militated against consensus building. Every grouping, every stance, is assessed in our country from a racial or political viewpoint. Indeed, civil groups seem to divide on every matter, not on the substance of the issues, but on ethnic grounds.
This is the basic reason for the necessity to establish guidelines, rules of procedure, and laws to ensure inclusivity and participation. At this stage of our social and political evolution nothing should be left to chance. Moreover, the evidence is quite strong that wherever rules which demand inclusivity are established, it almost inevitably follows that participation first becomes the norm and, thereafter, not only do civil society groups arise spontaneously, but racial animosities tend, to some extent, to be assuaged.
It should not be surprising therefore that the NDS recommends that it should be a requirement of law that permanent parliamentary committees be established to participate in all stages of the drafting of all legislation; that all such permanent parliamentary committees be legally obliged to consult with relevant sections of civil society; that non-governmental organizations should be registered, and their right to be consulted on a range of issues be enshrined in the country's laws; and that guidelines should be established to ensure that governments consult civil society and non-governmental organizations on the objectives and contents of national economic and social programmes.
The NDS, within the contest of participatory democracy, pays particular attention to the current systems of local and regional government. It insists that current arrangements accentuate the imperfections of central government by replicating both the winner-take-all syndrome, and the absence of statutory and formal procedures for consultation. If anything, because the power to make decisions which impinge upon regional and village life rests almost exclusively with the Centre, the peripheral systems impede, rather than assist, the development of local democracy.
The NDS therefore recommends that: (i) individuals should be elected directly at the regional and village levels to represent particular constituencies, wards or villages; (ii) legal provision should be made for all regional assemblies to make laws within clearly defined boundaries, and to impose taxes; and (iii) Parliament should devise a formula for the sharing of state funds among the Centre, the regions, the municipalities and the village authorities so that it would not be necessary for them to rely any longer on the whims and fancies of the central government.
Above all, the procedures which the NDS has recommended for the participation of civil society in all aspects of legislation and public policy decision-making at the Centre should be applied with equal vigour in the regions and in the village.