Dear Editor,
In a liberal democracy, though they should, governments/civil societies/NGOs, rarely enjoy a lovie dovie relationship. It can be worse in an autocracy or dictatorship. This is because in most instances, the ruling elites see themselves in office to govern, while civil society operates as bodies to ‘police’ governments especially when it comes to constitutional issues. Governments in general, tend to view civil society’s role and place with deep suspicion. Opposition parties are no different, their relationship with civil society is more competitive and strategic rather than tactical. It is usually a marriage of convenience.
Placed in the context of Guyanese politics, where does this uneasy relationship find us? To appreciate where we are, we need to begin with what can be considered the fit and proper perspective. Guyana is a signatory to the 1997 CARICOM Charter for Civil Society (CFCS) and the 2002 ‘Liliendaal Statement of Principles’ (LSOP). The latter was adopted at a Special Meeting between Heads and civil society organizations from across the region. The Charter sets out the role of social partners in public affairs and provides a framework for genuine participatory democracy. It opened the way for greater engagement between government and civil society in supporting national development. For its part, the LSOP states that civil society has a vital role to play in the development of political and social policies and called for ‘the establishment of a mechanism for continuous dialogue between civil society and CARICOM Heads to carry the initiative forward’.
None of the various articles of the Charter can be found in the Constitution of Guyana. Nor has implementation of the LSOP’s proposal or ‘regular institutional dialogue’ been followed through. Neither the provisions in the Charter nor the decisions in the LSOP are mandatory. They remain statements of intent. Member States, are left to their own devices as regards implementation. This state of affairs notwithstanding, governments are expected to act honourably and in good faith, in pursuit of the goals of both the Charter and the LSOP. If implemented, the Charter and the LSOP are potentially, the better and more enduring recommendations of the Community’s fifteen member states. Under present day conditions obtaining in the region, and especially where good governance is concerned, the Charter and LSOP can serve as gateways to promote and sustain a modus vivendi between governments and civil society in furtherance of people centered development, policy formulation, the environment and indigenous peoples’ affairs.
Take Article 4.1 of the Charter, for example: ‘States shall each establish a National Committee or designate a body to monitor and ensure the implementation of this Charter and that National Committee or body shall comprise: (a) Representatives of the State; (b) Representatives of the other social partners; and (c) Such other persons of high moral character and recognised competence in their respective fields of endeavour. The National Committee or body, as the case may be, shall review the implementation of this Charter, analysing any problems and difficulties experienced, and receive reports of allegations of breaches of, or non compliance with, the provisions of this Charter attributed to the State or to one or more social partners. No allegation of breaches or non compliance may be brought by any individual or entity in relation to a matter which has been adjudicated upon by an international body, the decision of which is binding upon the State.’
‘The National Committee or body shall notify the State or social partner, as the case may be, of the receipt of any allegation and request their comments thereon and the National Committee or body shall report to the Secretary General on allegations received, together with their comments thereon, including their own views on the matter.’ Defining persons of ‘high moral character’ can be problematic politically, if not judgmental so long as it is the State who shall determine who, amongst its citizenry, possess that specific attribute. The qualification to be of ‘high moral character’ was tested severely in 2020 when four lists of names deemed to be ‘not unacceptable’ to the President was submitted for the post of chairman of GECOM but was rejected unilaterally by President Granger. That qualifying irritant notwithstanding, Article XXII of the Charter stipulates: ‘The States undertake to establish within their respective States a framework for genuine consultations among the social partners in order to reach common understandings on and support for the objectives, contents and implementation of national economic and social programmes and their respective roles and responsibilities in good governance’
Among the many positive features of the Charter is that, in the absence of any manifestation of healthy cooperation, collaboration and communication between governments and civil society, the Charter provides a powerful handle to its civil adherents to hold governments accountable and to press those who strut the corridors of power to conduct government business in a transparent manner, be it in the form of public sector investment projects, cabinet’s no objection in the awarding of contracts, and appointments to constitutional bodies, but especially when actions by a government require lending its support to foreign funded mega infrastructure projects, appointments and/or a call on the Consolidated Fund. Whether they are branded ‘one man’ organizations or groupings of like minded individuals, civil society organizations are not necessarily homogeneous in their ideological nor philosophical outlook. And though they may differ when it comes to tactics, they tend towards an undeclared, but common strategic objective. To many civic society groups, public recognition of their efforts, media exposure, as well as tangible support by the diplomatic community in support of the fight against violations of the constitution, blatant acts of corruption, and in favour of inclusiveness provide oxygen for their existence.
However, it is the lack or absence of a consensual approach at the tactical and ideological levels that governments seek to exploit, thus making unity of action and solidarity amongst civil society organizations ineffective. However, thanks to a free and independent press as well as social media, civic society organizations have a voice and a medium through which their voices are heard on matters of public interest. More specifically, in respect to matters of public interest the Charter declares; ‘The States, in order to ensure morality in public affairs, agree that holders of public office and all those who exercise power, the exercise of which, affects or may affect the public interest, shall so order their affairs in accordance with national law that such ordering gives no cause for conflict to arise or to appear to arise between their private interests and their duties to the public, or to otherwise compromise their integrity. To this end, the States agree to establish a Code governing the conduct of the holders of public office and all those who exercise power, the exercise of which affects or may affect the public interest.’
And while reporting responsibilities are to be found in the Charter, without any obligation do so, member states are required to submit regular reports as follows: ‘The States undertake to submit periodically to the Secretary General of the Caribbean Community (hereinafter referred to as the “Secretary General”) for transmission to the Conference of Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community, reports on measures adopted and progress achieved in compliance with the provisions of this Charter’. But there is one exemption that makes reporting obligatory by member states; these are reports agreed by the Conference of Heads. During the period of implementation of the provisions of ‘Herdmanston Accord’ and agreements in ‘The St. Lucia Statement,’ Guyana was required to submit status reports to Intersessional or meetings of Conference because of Heads’ deep and sustained interest helping Guyana achieve illusive national reconciliation, social peace and political stability, at least temporarily. Such reports from the sitting Chairman of Conference and the President of Guyana at that time were not only necessary but extremely helpful to all parties. Further, it has been a long established tradition that Guyana submit reports on the status of its relations with Venezuela. More over, having assigned ‘portfolio responsibilities’ amongst member states, Guyana was saddled with the responsibility to submit reports of the state of the region’s agricultural sector.
The Charter calls for the submission of: ‘Reports, other than special reports which may be requested by the Conference at any time, shall be submitted every three years on a rotating basis to be determined by the Conference, indicating the factors and difficulties, if any, that affect the implementation of this Charter’ . The Charter further requires that, ‘In the preparation of their Reports, States shall, in accordance with the provisions of Article XXII, undertake consultation with the social partners, having regard to their crucial role in the attainment of the objectives of this Charter. In order to ensure transparency in and supervision of the reporting process from beginning to end, Article 5. (1) Of the Charter dictates that; ‘The Secretary General shall submit annually for consideration by the Conference, in accordance with criteria established by the Conference, reports received from the National Committees or bodies pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 4(3) of this Article.
The framers of the Charter and Heads of Government at the time, recognizing that their deliberations on reports from national committees should not remain sealed behind the walls of CARICOM went further: ‘The Secretary General shall inform the States and their National Committees or bodies of the results of the deliberations of the Conference on reports submitted pursuant to this Article, together with any recommendation emanating from their consideration of reported violations, non compliance, difficulties or problems experienced in the implementation of this Charter.’ However, in an effort to shore up the national sovereignty of member states, the Charter states: ‘Allegations of violations or non compliance shall not impose any obligations on a State to refrain from carrying out any decision of its Courts or other authorities pending consideration under this Article’. So there we have it. There is a way forward. However, whether such a relationship between government and civil society within the meaning of Charter, the LSOP or both, can emerge in Guyana is a matter for all those who have an interest in the realization of such a relationship.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
