Does the National Assembly have the capability to exercise effective oversight of the security sector? Despite a decade of escalating crime and violence in which the most awful atrocities have been perpetrated, the people’s elected representatives seem to have been unable to impose their will on the security sector and to enable it to guarantee public safety.
Last month, June, marked the deadline that the administration accepted to establish a parliamentary select security oversight committee. President Bharrat Jagdeo had held a series of multi-stakeholder consultations to seek solutions to the security situation following the Lusignan and Bartica massacres.
This month, July, marks the deadline for reconsidering the report of the Disciplined Forces Commission which was convened at the height of the Troubles in 2003. One of the report’s recommendations was for the establishment of a parliamentary committee on public safety.
Next month, August, marks the first anniversary of the signing of the Guyana-Britain interim memorandum of understanding on security sector reform. That memorandum provided for the establishment of two committees – one to review the much-ignored recommendations of the Disciplined Forces Commission and the other to review the implementation of the Security Sector Reform Action Plan.
Actually, steps have been taken to convene all of these committees but the National Assembly seems to have overreached its resources. Progress in addressing the core issue of crime has been slow. A part of the problem is that parliamentary responsibility for the sub-committees has been assigned to the already overtasked Prime Minister who, in addition to his own problematic portfolio, is required to perform the duties of president when President Jagdeo travels overseas. As a consequence, the frequency and duration of meetings, and volume of work on the security sub-committees, have suffered.
The big question is whether, given the gravity of the crime crisis, the National Assembly is really ready to address security sector issues strenuously, continuously and constructively? The exhausting effort to establish the sub-committees was hard enough; the establishment of a good working relationship between the administration and opposition sides will be harder.
Twice this year, the People’s Progressive Party-Civic side used its majority to thwart opposition initiatives on crime in the National Assembly. First was the derailment of the People’s National Congress-Reform’s attempt to introduce a motion on the Lusignan massacre that called for the implementation a definitive counter-crime plan of action. Second was the railroading of the motion on the Bourda Accord arising out of the agreements reached between the administration and the social partners without embracing the opposition’s concerns.
Democratic, civilian oversight of the security sector by the National Assembly is a public good. It is essential not only for the effectiveness of the security forces but also for the protection of the people’s human rights. Over the past ten months, public confidence in the defence, police and prison forces has been rocked by reports of torture, unlawful killing and other human rights abuses. The executive branch and the security sector seem not to be under pressure to account to the public on these serious matters.
Security is a core task of the state in which oversight by the legislative branch can be an essential counterbalance to the executive’s power and potential authoritarianism. Democratic civilian oversight is necessary to enable a legal framework based on accountability and transparency by articulating the people’s security concerns.
On the one hand, members of the National Assembly can give or withhold democratic legitimacy to governmental security decisions. Pro-active, well resourced, efficient oversight committees in the National Assembly can ensure that security forces meet the demands of the constitution, international humanitarian and human rights law as well as helping to create a sustainable economic development by encouraging investment. On the other, the absence of oversight could create opportunities for abuse of executive power, arbitrary policy-making, unaccountable bureaucracies, disengaged civil society, an unjust criminal justice system and reckless security services.
While the National Assembly dawdles, feral, homicidal gangs roam the near hinterland, pirates prowl the coastland and soldiers and civilians become victims of torture by the security forces. Guyana needs both security sector reform and effective oversight to bring this lawlessness to an end.
