Dear Editor,
After the 2011 elections, and we learned that the opposition had succeeded in winning control of Parliament from the dictatorial clutches of the PPP, there was a euphoria of hope and expectation among the population in general, majority electors in particular. We all felt that at last we might see some vibrant activism aimed at bringing relief from the stifling and depressing social, economic and cultural environment that has come to represent ordinary life in our dear nation. Alas, however, it would seem that we were clutching at straws. Two years after the power to bring about change was thrust on the shoulders of the opposition, little has been done to excite the confidence of the population that change is a-coming. Instead the parliamentary opposition seems to be perpetually running around aimlessly and without any sense of direction. Editor, I have to ask the question, what exactly is the agenda of the opposition? What is their goal, what is it that they hope to accomplish with the current strategy? Mr Granger said some time ago that the opposition had forced the governing party to be more amenable to the rules of governance, or words to similar effect, but where exactly has that been manifest? Surely the recent inability or refusal of the Minister of Finance to account for hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars spent over the financial period do not lend credence to the contention that the opposition have been able to bring the government back into the corner of democratic decency and honesty.
The strength and durability of democracy in any society, particularly those in which there lingers a strain of divisiveness occasioned by ethnic fears, dissatisfaction, and perceptions, real or imagined, of discrimination and marginalization, is heavily dependent on transparency and accountability in the actions of those holding and dispensing governmental power. The role of any opposition worth its salt is to actively and uncompromisingly strive to ensure that those important foundational pillars of democracy are manifestly apparent in the manner in which the business of the state is conducted.
It is quite clear from the tumultuous amount of revelations brought to the public’s attention by the diligent and expert scrutiny of earnest members of civil society, and the reporting and analysis of a pair of sometimes fearless and conscientious print media, that those principles are like unto, to quote brother Bob, “fleeting illusions, easily perceived, but very difficult to attain.” The disrespectful, arrogant and hubristic manner in which these principles are flagrantly violated is exemplified in an excerpt from the SN editorial of Monday 16th instant, under the caption, ‘Transparency and Muri Brasil Ventures,’ to wit: “While the duplicity of the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr Robert Persaud has been starkly exposed in two separate meetings he held on mining with no less than a standing committee of Parliament and the Guyana Human Rights Association, his woes are symptomatic of deeper problems in this 21-year-old reign by the PPP/C. The first is that ministers and leading officials have been given to think that they can mislead, dissemble and toy with the public without consequence. They feel that they are above the law and beyond the reach of institutional checks and secondly that their current President, immediate past President and party will forever protect them. There have been other cases where this minister’s words and actions have been called into question without official censure…”
And this just represents the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, of the utter disregard the ruling political assembly seem to have for the principles of democracy, the concerns of the public, and the ability of the parliamentary opposition to influence their adherence to the fundamental rules of democratic governance. Editor, the most important checks on a government’s tendency to trash the principles enshrined in the laws and regulations, in the constitution, in expert democratic treatises, lie in the efficiency of a parliamentary opposition, and a free and unfettered press. Despite the plantation like domination of ruling party over the publicly owned media, and its usurious control over the output of large sections of other private media holdings who are rewarded for the sycophantic propagating of the ruling party line, the Kaieteur News and the Stabroek News have both, in varying degrees of perseverance, stepped up to the plate to provide the public with important information highlighting the fractures that are crippling the functioning of governance, and the attendant development of the nation. This cannot be overstated in my view. However, I am yet to see a parallel determination and perseverance on part of the Parliamentary opposition in this direction. Instead they continue to be tardily reactive to things that have been going on under the noses for eons.
Without the exposure of the recycling plant scam by the Kaieteur News and the well-known civil society experts who have developed an armour-like resistance to the ruling party’s ‘cussing’ outs, like Amaila, the nation would have once more become a victim of the myriad three card scams orchestrated and presented as genuine developmental projects. The fact that the responsible Minister in the recycling scam publicly claimed that he had vetted the bona fides of the opportunistically assembled company prior to the MOU, and it was hastily aborted following the revelations, is demonstrative of the failings of the parliamentary opposition to live up to the mandate bestowed on it by the electorate at the last national elections. Martin Luther King Jr extolled the virtue of, “Never, never be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society’s punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.”
It has become imperative for the parliamentary opposition to rise from its slumber-like trance and demonstrate that this is a virtue that they cherish and hold close to their hearts; that the well-being of the Guyanese society is more important than their personal political ambitions and aspirations. It is imperative that they demonstrate to the people that their commitment to real democracy and people power is not discharged by the simple enunciations of flowery promises and cathartic inducing clichés. They must prove that they are worthy of the mantle of national governance in a manner that starkly contrasts with what obtains in Guyana today. This should include changes in their party parliamentary structure that allows some form of rotation of MPs within the five-year period, thereby abridging the stagnation of ideas and somnolence the current system cultivates. Every individual and group in our national society has a stake in the democratic governance of our nation. They have an entitlement to live in a country where they can look forward to transparent, honest and accountable national management in the agencies of the state; independent and empowered local goverment; and the embracing of our motto that we are indeed One People, One Nation bound together in a common destiny. This cannot be achieved while the state is being run like a partisan political fiefdom, where ministers and other officials operate like monarchical potentates with power and authority to dispense and distribute the commonwealth according to their personal whims and fancies. We the people are the legitimate owners of the national holdings, and whether in government or in opposition, those elected to parliament must accept that the relationship between them and the people is one of servanthood.
In other words, they are public servants, in a manner of speaking, placed in their respective positions to fairly and impartially, fulfil the dictates of their professional and functional responsibilities.
The power of a political party democratically elected into government must be checked by a parliamentary opposition’s diligence in ensuring that such power is discharged in a manner compatible with legal and constitutional obligations and requirements. This is the only way to bring about democracy that is sustainable, and assure the people that those holding ministerial and other official positions are held accountable for their actions. It is my enduring prayer and hope that as a nation, our leaders, both in government and opposition, can be weaned from the anachronistic and primitive political patterns of the past, and induced to embrace the style of leadership that brought such universal accolades to the iconic South African leader Nelson Mandela.
None from these shores has so far ever graced the perimeters of the standards he has set. It is not too late for the current political leadership on all sides to reach for that honour.
Yours faithfully,
Mark A Benschop
