Dear Editor,
Henry Jeffrey is entirely correct when he notes that the building of social cohesion in Guyana requires the “the establishment of the appropriate consensus-building governance mechanisms” and, further, without changing the course of governance in Guyana, the policy recommendations in the Draft Strategic Plan for Social Cohesion in Guyana, 2017-2021 would be “mere platitudes” (‘The strategic plan for social cohesion’, SN May 24, 2017). I had publicly articulated a similar position in stating that “without the other aspects of good governance (such as participation of people, and responsiveness and transparency of governing bodies), social cohesion programmes cannot get far” (‘Advice on how to proceed with social cohesion’, KN October 13, 2016).
I differ from Jeffrey’s position however that additional constitutional reforms are first required to turn platitudes into real achievements. Constitution reform would help but is not a necessary and success-guaranteeing condition. Much of what is required to build social cohesion in Guyana already exists in our law and in international best practices. To see this, one has to both properly conceptualize social cohesion and therefrom analyse where we are and what we have to do. In terms of conceptualization, Bernard’s framework can claim to be the most user-friendly: (i) whether people feel that they belong (or feel isolated); (ii) whether people can participate in decisions that affect them (or are and feel sidelined); (iii) whether people see their government and other public institutions as legitimate (or illegitimate); (iv) whether all groups have fair access to economic resources and opportunities (or are and feel deprived); and (v) whether people feel that their distinctive cultures and identities are recognized (or rejected).
So operationalized, the means already exist in Guyana to address even the most challenging of social cohesion issues. We do not first need constitution reform to, for example, put in place effective measures to attend to the fears and concerns of sugar workers with regards the contraction of the sugar industry. Nothing now prevents us from ensuring that sugar workers feel represented, involved and respected.
Which brings me to a recommendation I had made in a previous letter. If we treat social cohesion policies and mechanisms as add-ons, we may indeed be dealing in platitudes. In Guyana’s political context, almost every decision the government makes will have an impact on social cohesion. What may be required therefore as a standard procedure is the preparation of social cohesion impact assessments (similar in format and intent to an Environmental Impact Assessment) for every major decision at all levels of government.
I have only flicked through the Draft Strategic Plan for Social Cohesion in Guyana, so I am not sure to what extent it recognizes that social cohesion is totally dependent on good governance. I am also not sure if the plan recognizes that the country is further along the road in some aspects of social cohesion (example: recognition of different cultures) than in others (example: public participation in decisions that affect them), and what this means for how the plan is shaped. Further, since social cohesion boils down to perception (how people feel), I hope to see in the plan the necessity for both satisfaction and opinion surveys. Lastly, the plan has to recognize that the decisions in all portfolios and levels of government affect social cohesion.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
