Central government has a constitutional obligation to provide finances to local democratic organs. Municip-alities and neighbourhoods throughout Guyana – starting with the City of Georgetown – are generally dirty places. This might seem to be the failure of local democratic organs which are responsible for maintaining and improving the local environment. Citizens should appreciate, however, that the apparent failure of these councils to effectively discharge their responsibilities is not of their own making.
The People’s Progressive Party/Civic –PPP/C – administration has determinedly pursued a course of undermining the authority of these local organs. This includes starving them of financial resources. Councillors who comprise the six municipalities and 65 NDCs were elected in 1994 for a 3-year term. Today, 20 years later, many find themselves in the same positions. They cannot be expected to have the same level of enthusiasm, energy and efficiency in performing what is largely a civic and community service. Their mandate to continue has to be renewed by the holding of regular elections.
A Partnership for National Unity – APNU – salutes the many honest, hardworking councillors who are still present in our local democratic organs. It is unfair for them to be labelled as the scapegoats for the failure which is a systemic one. It is the central government’s obligation – in accordance with articles are 77 and 77A of the Constitution of Guyana – to provide finances to local government bodies to enable them to carry out their functions:
– Article 77 states: The development programme of each region shall be integrated into the national development plans, and the Government shall allocate funds to each region to enable it to implement its development programme.
– Article 77A states: Parliament shall by law provide for the formulation and implementation of objective criteria for the purpose of the allocation of resources to, and the garnering of resources by local democratic organs.
The PPP/C administration took more than a decade to give effect to this constitutional provision. Its Fiscal Transfers Bill – intituled “An Act to provide for the objective criteria for the allocation of resources to local authorities …” – was a misnomer. The Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum states that it “… seeks to give effect to article 77 (A) (sic) of the Constitution”.
The Bill did nothing of the sort. Clause 3 dealt with the garnering of resources by local authorities. Clause 4 set conditions for fiscal transfers. Clause 5 said that “The Minister may establish grants to any local authority”. Clause 6 alluded to “annual subventions or fiscal transfers from central government to local authorities” but offered only a “formula” for eligibility for such transfers and introduced “stipulated performance indicators” as a precondition for fiscal transfers!
The Bill, therefore, did nothing to alter the status quo. Subventions from the central government to local democratic organs remained discretionary and not obligatory. Its title, which professes to provide for objective criteria for the allocation of resources and its claim that it gives effect to article 77 A of the Constitution, are groundless.
It does not satisfy the Constitutional requirement nor does it meet the Joint Task Force`s proposal on criteria for allocation of resources to local government bodies.
The recommendation stated clearly that such criteria have to be informed by a premise and identified this to be clear definitions of the functions to be undertaken by the various levels of local government. According to the Task Force, therefore, central government allocations would be on the basis of the functions to be carried out at the various levels.
The Bill’s deficiency, therefore, is that it did not do justice to the new constitutional articles. Subventions or fiscal transfers could not be based on the formula for allocation without first establishing a clear formula as to how much funding would be given to local democratic organs to enable them to discharge their constitutional mandate. The PPP/C administration does not accept the principle that local government is a ‘partner’ of central government and not its adversary or appendage.
APNU and opposition members in the Special Select Committee were able to remedy the deficiency in the Bill. They included a new clause, which states: “In arriving at the determination of the annual subvention from central government to local authorities … it is acknowledged that central government has a responsibility to provide financial resources to local authorities to supplement their own revenues and in order to assist them to discharge their functions and responsibilities”. Local government organs will now be able to bring legal challenges against the central government if they continue to be unreasonably starved of finances.
The PPP/C, in its more than 21 years in office, has demonstrated it does not believe in or subscribe to local democracy which is enshrined in the constitution. It has, by its own actions, demonstrated its addiction to centralised control.
APNU iterates its call for the central government to end its oppressive interference in the functioning of local government organs. These councils must be allowed to operate with autonomy as guaranteed by the constitution.
