Good governance thrives in an environment where there are robust checks and balances; where no branch of government exercises unrestrained and improper sway as for example the executive influencing decisions of the judiciary or creating conditions where judicial officers feel intimidated or beholden to the executive in the discharge of their functions. In the case of our Westminster hybrid, Parliament’s work could be unduly stymied by the non-assenting to of bills and various other means. Where that Parliament is a rubber stamp, the diminishing of its work is even starker.
The hung Parliament result in November automatically releases the pressure of unsavoury influences in any of the relationships among the branches of government while at the same time raising the stakes for each to fully assert itself and robustly defend its independence.
In this mix comes an even more important element. The constitution and the laws of the country make provision for a host of institutions which are intended to protect the citizen from excesses whether from the executive or arising from abusive or unjust behaviour by a member of the executive or any of the other branches.
It is crucial that all three parties represented in Parliament and the government become seized of the importance of breathing life into these institutional controls and permitting them to function without interference. While all three parties have a stake in this, it is the opposition that the public will look to for leadership in this matter as PPP/C governments stand indicted as having presided over the decay, ignoring of or interference with many of them. It surely didn’t inherit an impressive record from its predecessor but over the last 19 years the PPP/C has made little effort to entrench the independence and vibrancy of these institutions and laws and to the contrary has tried to control and subvert them. This we should remember was the period that followed the restoration of democracy and high-browed pledges about deepening and broadening the democratic reach. Many of these moribund institutions would test the sincerity and commitment of President Ramotar’s administration to enhance the quality of governance offered to citizens.
In no particular order of significance or importance, one can start with the Office of the Ombudsman. It is ironic that this historically relevant body has had a more meaningful existence during the maligned 28 years of PNC governance than the PPP/C’s now 20th year. Whereas in the PNC era it was not free of assumptions of interference and dereliction, it existed and delivered noteworthy decisions. In today’s PPP/C reign, even though there are many cries of injustice, there is presently no office holder, office or immediate promise of such. Yet, there have been annual budgetary allocations which were no doubt shunted in various directions. An Ombudsman of standing and seriousness provides an important forum for any member of the public aggrieved at some act by the State or its representatives and should be one of the institutional reconstructions on the front-burner.
The Office of the Integrity Commission was another that the opposition had pushed the Hoyte administration to agree to prior to the 1992 general elections. When it eventually came it was not sufficient but provided an acceptable basis to begin the process of ensuring integrity in public life and was later amended. Like many of the other important institutions, one way of limiting it was placing it on a subsistence existence and this is exactly what happened to the Integrity Commission. Wracked by early controversy over how the commissioners were appointed it was never outfitted or equipped to perform its task adequately. When Bishop George resigned it was left on life support and without recognition by the PNCR. Perhaps the Integrity Commission, along with the office of the Ombudsman, should be constitutionally entrenched and leavened with the legislative clout and resources to enable them to execute their functions. The do have a pivotal role to play. Several officials under the two Jagdeo administrations have enriched themselves beyond reasonable assumptions on their known sources of income. They should have been and still should be subject to exacting examination of their earnings and the relevant questions asked of them. At the same time it is clear that all leading government officials and certainly the president should be subject to the authority of the Integrity Commission.
The Office of the Auditor General remains the single most important institution in determining whether government ministries, departments and regions are expending money to the highest standards of financial probity and whether value for money is being obtained. Whereas, the late President Hoyte had presided over the appointment of the most heralded candidate to hold that position, it was former President Jagdeo’s government that found the means to pressurize him out of office when he began to ask uncomfortable questions. Despite its best efforts, the office today is not able to stand up to political pressures and has other issues surrounding it. The appointing of a qualified person as Auditor General and the funding of the office by a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund as opposed to the current arrangement will do wonders for public accountability and in tandem with the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament will ensure a spotlight on government spending.
Of enormous importance is the Public Procurement Commission which constitutional reforms under the PPP/C created. A decade later it is inexplicably still to be in place and complaints about public procurement excesses have grown exponentially and will not fade. The process of appointments to the commission was filibustered by the PPP/C at the level of the Public Accounts Committee. Formation of the commission requires agreement on candidates with specific qualifications and having had exposure to the issues at the level of Parliament, President Ramotar would be in a good position to push this matter along.
A truly independent broadcast authority immune from ministerial interference and an Access to Information Commissioner who is independent minded would be key additions to the slate of checks and balances. These pieces of legislation which were presented to the last session of parliament are timely and vital to openness and the ability to scrutinize government. The government is yet to explain the basis on which radio licences were belatedly granted by the Jagdeo administration before the November 28 general elections and it is the type of matter that can be properly resubmitted to a professional broadcasting authority. The President should also not be the person who holds the information portfolio as this can lead to various sources of unnecessary and troubling friction.
Ingraining the financial independence of a restructured GECOM is another area for critical attention as is raising the profile of the Financial Intelligence Unit. The latter is intended to track proceeds from illicit endeavours but has had no known public impact in the years that it has been in existence. The Police Complaints Authority must finally be given its own resources to investigate matters brought against policemen.
The Public Service Appellate Tribunal, the service commissions and the rights commissions catered for under the Constitution have absolutely vital roles to play in redressing grievances and ensuring fairness in appointments, disciplining etc. To function optimally they require adequate resources and the appointing of persons who will fearlessly discharge their mandates.
If the governing benches and the opposition can give life to these laws and institutions they would be well on the way to improving governance without any of the rhetoric associated with the broad and often meaningless declarations of inclusive and shared governance.
