Article 13 of the constitution provides for the people of Guyana to be active participants in the decision-making processes addressing issues which would impact on their daily lives. It is now for the government to create the environment which would allow this to happen.
Inclusive governance or power-sharing, whatever the label one puts on that form of governance, is insufficient by itself to allow the people of Guyana the opportunity to exercise that right the constitution has given them. They can only do so if the systems are created that would allow their concerns to be known and considered when decisions are being taken that would affect them.
Despite the fact that at the last elections the PPP and PNCR would have obtained the votes of about 95 per cent of the electorate, it gives them no right to exclude the other parties from discussions of critical national importance. Of course it would be helpful if there is a good relationship between the two parties as PPP General Secretary Donald Ramotar says is necessary. However, the absence of such a relationship does not mean that a discussion involving the other political parties and civil society groups cannot take place.
The population of Guyana is not made up of solely PPP and PNCR supporters. There are people who support neither party whose rights are no less important than those who vote for one or the other of the parties. These non-PPP, non-PNCR supporters have every right to be allowed to make a contribution to the development of the country and to share in whatever benefits result from the exploitation of our resources. They also have as well an equal right to be involved in the decision-making processes that would impact their daily lives.
The constitution provides for them to do so at the various levels of the society and the challenge for the government and the rest of us is to devise a system which makes the elected representatives at various levels accountable to their constituents.
The task force on local government reform is struggling with this issue and it appears that there is a rearguard battle being waged to prevent the people from being able to hold their representatives accountable directly to them. There is no place in village and neighbourhood affairs for political parties to play an overly intrusive role. What is needed are persons who are prepared to work for the interests of the village or the neighbourhood unfettered by concerns about party interests.
At the national level where the individual's concerns would have to be expressed through interest group(s) there must be accommodations that would allow the views of the various interest groups to be heard and taken account of. The constitution allows for meaningful consultation to ascertain these views and sets out the procedures for doing so.
The government has shown a marked reluctance for following laid down procedures, using the baseless argument that the previous government did not do so. But during the twenty-eight years it spent in opposition, the present ruling party waged a relentless battle for accountability and due observance of the constitution. So it is not sufficient to compare their actions with the previous government. Moreover, the previous government did not, as the present government now has, have the benefit of constitutional provisions specifying the procedures required for meaningful consultation.
However inconvenient they may seem these provisions have to be observed and they were not enacted without the consent and approval of the ruling party. Moreover, as a people we did not delegate authority to the government which they would expect to exercise in our name without reference to us, whether or not we voted for them. In fact we did so in the expectation that it would govern in the interest of all the people whether they voted for them or not, including those who could not have been bothered to vote at all.
It is thus puzzling that President Jagdeo has not yet responded to Robert Corbin's proposal that the other parliamentary parties and civil society groupings be part of future discussions on issues of national importance.
This is a clear opportunity for the President to put into practice the inclusivity he fervently proclaims his party has embraced. It is clear that the society can no longer pin its hopes on the PPP and PNCR reaching agreement from which they come away with the same understanding about what was agreed, and with a wholehearted commitment to the implementation of the decisions as happened during the aborted constructive engagement process.
It is time that the two main parties are eased of the burden of deciding our destiny on their own and we the people play an active role in the process individually or through our respective organisations and interest groups. We need to assist the government by clearly articulating our concerns on issues so that they are left in no doubt what those views are. It is conceivable that our views may not coincide with that of the government for one reason or the other but we would like to know that those views were considered when the government arrives at its decision.
It is not beyond the competence of the government and the various interest groups to devise a system best suited to our needs which allows us to elect legislators, at the village or neighbourhood levels who would be accountable to their constituents first and to their political parties, if they are members of any, second.
At the national level we must now return the discussions of issues of national importance to the parliament where it should normally and appropriately be located. Unfortunately, as Sir Paul Reeves, the Commonwealth Secretary-General's envoy, whose assistance our leaders requested to help them resolve their differences, recently observed there is no history and tradition of the parliament being afforded the pride of place it deserves.
Recent constitutional amendments now provide for reforms to the parliament which would make it more than a rubber stamp for the government's legislative programme.
But it has to be provided with the resources that would allow the reforms to achieve the intended results. This is the only way that the parliament would exemplify the description mouthed by government and opposition parliamentarians that it is the highest deliberative forum in the land. It is the only way to prevent the governing elite that comprises the Cabinet from riding roughshod over the wishes of the rest of us.