Dear Editor,
At page 12 of their manifesto, the APNU+AFC committed to “… building inclusive, responsive and accountable governance … restrict or regulate Government intervention in political, economic and moral matters affecting the citizenry”. Similarly and long before their joint manifesto, these two political parties, while in opposition, championed the cause of consultation, advancing at every convenient opportunity, the virtual truism that a consultative democracy is an indispensible cog in the wheel of economic and social progress in any society. Article 13 of the constitution was a popular hymn in their song book, as they propagandistically sang the mantra of consultation. It provides:
Article 13 “The principal objective of the political systems of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organizations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being”.
In government, the political sophistry has continued. In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance, under the heading “Governance” at page 55, commits that his government will govern “… in a transparent, efficient, inclusive and decisive manner, paying due regard to respecting and upholding the rule of law and the rights of all the citizens of Guyana”.
However, the reality is quite different and the absence of consultation and inclusivity in government is most pronounced. Several ministries were renamed and new ones created without a word of consultation; the Guyana Convention Centre was renamed, again, there was no consultation; ceremonial activities and the hoisting of our national flag which took place at the National Park for the last forty-eight years, were moved to other venues without a murmur of consultation; fifty-seven national awards were conferred without any consultation whatsoever; regional budgets were prepared by central government with no consultation with or input from the regional authorities; a Registrar and Deputy Registrar of Lands were appointed but there was no consultation or input from the Guyana Bar Association, Guyana Women Lawyers Association or Berbice Bar Association; a Constitution Reform Committee was established, again, there was no consultation with the aforementioned lawyer associations or indeed anyone else; a move is afoot to regulate the media without any consultation whatsoever with the Guyana Press Association or anyone else; flags have been selected for each administrative region without any consultation, nationally or even with the regional authorities; persons have been appointed to state boards without any consultation whatsoever; indeed, the persons themselves were not consulted. So, Adrian Anamayah MP, read in the newspapers that he was appointed as a member of GuySuCo Board of Directors. No one spoke to him about it hitherto. Three persons were appointed to the Guyana Rice Development Board (GRDB) as representatives of the Rice Producers Association (RPA), as is required by the GRDB Act, but neither the RPA nor these persons were consulted. Two persons were appointed to the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority Board as representatives of the RPA. These persons ought to have been nominated by the RPA, in accordance with the Drainage and Irrigation Act. Neither these persons, nor the RPA was consulted and they were certainly not nominated by the RPA, as the law requires. Policy and programmatic changes vital to the very existence of the Amerindian village economy were made but not a word of consultation was held with the Amerindians or their representative organizations.
The above recitation, though exhausting, is by no means exhaustive. However, it presents irrefutable evidence that this administration has demonstrably displayed a shocking proclivity to govern, not consultatively as promised, but in accordance with their idiosyncrasies, whims, fancy and political caprice. Perhaps, the posture adopted by the Prime Minister during the business of the recently concluded Committee of Supply best exemplifies the position of this administration in respect of consultation.
In relation to budgetary allocations for the newly established constitutional reform outfit which he has established, I asked the Prime Minister whether he held consultations before he established this outfit. He said yes. I then specifically asked if he consulted with the Guyana Bar Association, the Guyana Women Lawyers Association and the Berbice Bar Association or any civil society organization. He said no. Puzzled, I then asked, with whom he had consulted. The Prime Minister sheepishly said that he consulted with his cabinet colleagues!
It is evident that this government considers consulting with and by themselves an acceptable form of consultation when every rational mind understands consultation to connote an engagement with a person, body or organization that is extrinsic and not intrinsic. I recall as a child, listening on the radio to Prime Minister Forbes Burnham answering questions about his decision to launch the doctrine of party paramountcy on the Guyanese nation. Mr Burnham resolutely maintained that he held consultations. The question was specifically asked, with whom he consulted; Mr Burnham promptly answered that he had held long consultations with the leader of the PNC. He was both. Forty years have passed. The PNC is back in government under a changed name, but their concept of consultation remains unchanged.
Yours faithfully,
Anil Nandlall, MP
