Getting dialogue back on track
Editorial
Stabroek News
April 29, 2002
The upshot of the letter sent by PNC/R leader Desmond Hoyte to President Bharrat Jagdeo on April 23 is that the dialogue between the two leaders will remain suspended until the decisions they had agreed on are implemented.
Both sides clearly know where the other stands and the only thing left to be done now is to give full effect to the commitments made. Importantly, there is no difference of opinion over what needs to be done only whether it should have been done faster. That is no reason for these talks to remain suspended.
Even if the dialogue was in progress the onus would have been on the government to get the various tasks done quickly so it must now show that it can do this. Some of the areas cited in Mr Hoyte's letter indicate that the government had been caught on the back foot. Why did it take so long for the government to recognise that De Kinderen needed to be regularised before electrification? Why was the National Policy on Distribution of Land and House Lots not ready by February 2002? Or March 2002? Is it ready as yet? Why did it take so long for the Report of the Border and National Security Committee to be declassified for tabling in parliament even if the relevant sectoral committee had not yet been established?
There clearly could have been greater speed in some of these areas. It is not a question of who is wrong or who is right. It is a matter of completing the undertakings given in voluntary and mature dialogue and that is the responsibility of the government.
What is evident, as many commentators had previously expressed concerns over, is that government via a multiplicity of bipartisan committees - as established by the two leaders following the elections unrest - is never going to be easy. Those entrusted with executing tasks work at varying rates, with varying degrees of efficiency and are not always attuned to what is demanded of them by their leaders. Moreover, these committees have no legal or constitutional bona fides and therefore lack the standing and authority desired. Their objectives may also run counter to programmes in the established stream of governance and their mere existence complicates and undermines the normal functioning of the opposition in a parliamentary democracy.
It was also unfortunate that despite a series of encounters, the two leaders could have come away with so diametrically opposed interpretations of what transpired at their February meetings. The President seemed assured that Mr Hoyte understood why certain things remained undone while Mr Hoyte believed that the President apprehended that he was extremely dissatisfied with progress to the extent that he was contemplating putting the talks on hold. They quite clearly misunderstood each other.
When the talks resume, and we hope this will be very soon, it would be sensible for the leaders to issue a brief joint statement on the decisions arrived at following meetings, who was expected to implement them and the timeframe. In addition, oversight of progress could be referred to a plenipotentiary from either side. A much tighter arrangement would enable the leaders to properly judge the progress being made and the public would also benefit. Too often in the past mixed signals were transmitted from the meetings and by the leaders in their individual pronouncements, hence the divide that led to the suspension of the talks.
One vital area for attention is the stalemate over the parliamentary management committee and the parliamentary sectoral committees. The two leaders had entrusted the crafting of a solution to Messrs Reepu Daman Persaud and Lance Carberry for some time now. If a decision is not forthcoming very soon the leaders themselves should settle it. Too much time has been wasted and too many important constitutional, parliamentary and legislative functions have been held up. The dormancy of the judicial, police, public and teaching service commissions is a potent example. Decision makers need to be seized of the importance of these bodies and act accordingly. The Gordian Knot that the composition of the sectoral committees has engineered must be speedily cut.
There is another important issue. As mentioned earlier, the committees agreed to by the two leaders have no real standing. Moreover, they detract substantially from the recognised forum for government/opposition interaction - Parliament. That institution is already staggering under serious charges that matters of concern to the opposition are not being dealt with, that it meets too infrequently and that its legislative agenda is not significant enough. The PNC/R, GAP/WPA and ROAR have all complained about the parliamentary desuetude. The Jagdeo/Hoyte committees - while useful in deflating the post-2001 elections - run the risk of subsuming healthy government/opposition engagement in Parliament. Perhaps legislative means could be found to bring the operation of the committees within the ambit of Parliament.
It is further reason for the government to move swiftly to enliven Parliament by coming to an agreement with the opposition on the parliamentary management committee and making the National Assembly a truly deliberative body.