Dear Editor,
Civil society occupies a critical space/ function/ responsibility within the relationship between the State and the People. This body of diverse representatives and interests share the common goal of advocating on behalf of and advancing the well-being of our nation through political processes, working to influence political decisions and as conduits and deliverers of various types of direct support. Interna-tionally, all bilateral (BLI) and multi-lateral institutions (MLI) sovereign regions, nations and states who have endorsed the Paris Declaration of Aid Effectiveness (PDAE) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have agreed to and recognized the non-negligibility of a comprehensive, sustained, structured and multidimensional civil society vis-à-vis achieving local, regional and international development targets, reducing poverty, mal-governance, etc.
At an international Roundtable gathering in Hanoi, Vietnam (2004) it was declared that “civil society must not merely be a mobilizer of local groups and individuals, nor even a “watchdog” on outcomes, but that it must also play an integral part in decision making at all levels. Civil society must go beyond acting as a catalyst of change at the local level to include pressing for change in power structures to enable marginalized groups to play a greater roles in influencing decisions that affect their lives.” Such a function calls for enriched capacities within civil society, collaboration within the sector and between government, sector organization, push to produce enabling conditions, the ability to negotiate and demand national consultation and participation in processes of national concern and the fundamental recognition that the sector must organize themselves not against any one entity nor the unwholesome practices of such an entity but in exercise of their universal mandate to strengthen the development and delivery of democracy, good governance, social and economic policies and programmes, etc. at the sectoral and operational levels in Guyana.
During the turbulent 60’s, slightly optimistic 70’s and rock bottom 80’s civil society played a critical role in mitigating the effects of ethnic and economic violence, jaundiced policies and the multitude of atrocities visited on the beautiful people of Guyana under the notion of engineering a self-sufficient nation. Though the sector had been politically penetrated, its actions were vibrant and executed with greater organization than we are seeing today.
From the late 80’s on to now, we have witnessed even greater atrocities (both in quantity and severity) and civil society though active in financially appealing sectors seems to have lost focus of its true responsibilities, thus we have observed without much concerted resistance, the withering of the social contract. During this period, poverty has been re-distributed more than it has been alleviated, ethnic tension and economic violence deceitfully legitimized by the adoption of half-baked policies and programmes and our political culture graduated to a higher level of callousness, divisiveness, deviousness, immaturity and indecency. Make no mistake; Guyana has made tremendous strides in a number of areas, most notably infrastructure, market liberalization and balance of payments but the impact of these gains in the lives of average Joes and Janes are undermined and largely unfelt because we have not managed to effectively cushion the rising cost of living (not only financially) neither have we transformed our archaic system of governance to mandate meaningful inclusivity at all levels. Thus, we have a situation where “runaway” governance neglects to implement the lessons learnt before in the interest of a cohesive, democratic and prospering nation. Rather we observe the “politics of yesterday” firmly rooted today.
Yours faithfully,
R. Small
