Consultation – an act of futility

Oct 26, 2008 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

By Khemraj Ramjattan
Chairman AFC

This Jagdeo administration pays lip-service (and probably less than that) to consultation, thereby giving this political practice a hollow ring.

His administration has abandoned the good attributes we all thought would have been attached to this practical convention; and, which would have moved us on to a new political dispensation.

Crude political practices worsen when consultation is absent. And here in Guyana we have some of the crudest political practices; and, a next to negligible amount of consultation.

One such crude political practice is lying, speaking falsely, in the open public. Being unapologetic thereafter, after being shown the error of your utterance, is even worse.

I will always remember how the President and the entirety of the PPP’s Central Committee then present (excepting Moses Nagamootoo) relied on a bald-faced untruth to save face for the President, as some privately told me afterwards, when they denied that the President ever said to me in my face – “You Ramjattan, you take internal party matters to the Press and the American Embassy.”

It must never be forgotten also that after being proven how ignorant His Excellency was on matters pertaining to tax holidays and concessions on the Queens Atlantic deal, His Excellency has not seen it fit to apologise to Mr.

Yesu Persaud for unjustifiably uttering words – “Top business people like Persaud are ignorant of the tax laws and I will have to arrange a seminar to educate them.”
No apologies! Not yet, not ever!

But now a deficiency of consultation at almost all levels of our politics has doubly aggravated the situation. The few occasions of consultation, like the one with civil society after the massacres earlier this year, and the Economic Partnership Agreement recently, were wholly opportunistic.

I have seen at the legislative level the worst practice of consultation. And this was never supposed to be so. Dr. Jagan in his Presidential Address to the National Assembly made it quite clear that the Assembly must be genuinely consultative, where deliberations must be mature and the views of all be given space and consideration. To a large extent Dr. Jagan ensured a consideration of the views of others during his term in office, 1992 – 1997.

Not so under the Jagdeo administration. This leadership has given a new meaning to the concept. It has been emptied of that desirable fullness and effectiveness, and has become replete with formality and unproductiveness.

Consultation under the Jagdeo regime has a manifestation of outright rejection of everything said by the Opposition, and a total ignoring of anything of a dissenting, even though powerful, view.

Having experienced the modus operandi of both Presidents and appreciating what distinguished them, I want the distinction to be understood.

In Dr. Jagan’s case, consultation meant a genuine seeking out of views and a consideration of them in the final product, be it a Policy, Bill, Motion or Amendment.

On those occasions where the views of the consulted were ignored, reasons had to be found to rationalize why they were ignored.

Not so under Jagdeo. Consultation under his regime means seeking views, but unless these views coincide exactly with his, there is no obligation to consider or much less follow them.

Consultation here embraces no more than the opportunity to express a view. Beyond that it matters nothing at all. You simply have to haul your ass! No consideration so as to accommodate; no ground for a synthesis.

This approach at the legislative level is most dangerous. It constitutes a rapid retrogression and a noticeable democratic rollback which somehow must be halted at the national level.

I must warn here that Opposition Parliamentarians and, vicariously, their constituencies, will be forced to conjure up extra-parliamentary methods of struggle when the Parliamentary option becomes meaningless and unproductive.

Even constituencies which supported the Government will adopt such methods when they see nothing productive and useful coming out of the institution that is substantially there to take care of their problems and ensure their happiness – our Parliament.

Notice how within strongholds of the PPP there have been spontaneous rebellious outbursts and road demonstrations. Even now as I write this, there are angry demonstrations because of no water and light in West Coast Berbice.

But the crude leadership style and no consultation gets even worse when they are used as tools to pass legislation seriously encroaching on the civil liberties of Guyanese. This is exactly what has been happening in the recent past. Here are two most recent examples.

The Evidence Amendment Bill which seeks to deny an accused the right to be in Court with his lawyer, and the right to confront his accuser is passed, notwithstanding sound cogent arguments as to its unconstitutionality. The AFC pointed out to the National Assembly how this is so. But its act was one in futility.

The fundamental human rights provision which will be contravened will be Article 144 (2) where in two separate passages it is stipulated that an accused person “shall be permitted to defend himself before the Court in person or by a legal representative of his choice” and “except with his consent, the trial shall not take place in his absence unless the accused so conducts himself as to render the continuances of the proceedings impracticable…….”

In the most draconian Wire Tapping Bill called the Interception of Communication Bill, the State, through the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner of Revenue, the Head of the Army, with warrants from a Judge and through the auspices of the Minister of Home Affairs without a warrant from a Judge, can ransack your privacy rights and interfere with your freedom of expression rights.

Through these designated officers, the State can surveil your telephone calls, your computer and order all the contents therein. The Bill compels telecommunication providers to spend huge sums in equipment, personnel and paperwork to meet compliance requirements to get information for the State.

This obviously gives rise to property rights challenges. Moreover, the deeming of these requirements as part of the licence, (which if for financial incapacity cannot be complied with), will mean a breach of the said licence. Any good lawyer can foresee a retrospective application of penal provisions here.

Both the AFC and the PNC pointed out these various grounds why this Bill may suffer from a deficiency of constitutionality.

But all this effort was to no avail. It was not even sent to a Select Committee so that more thought and mature deliberation could be had of its provisions.

One of Jagdeo’s instrumentality, Ms. Indra Chandrapaul, is now saying the opposition parties had enough time on this Bill – the recess over the months of August and September 2008. Other proponents argued that Jamaica has a somewhat similar Bill.

Indeed, but in Jamaica the Manley Government proposed it in a White Paper called Ministry Paper No. 76 and tabled same in Parliament since 1990.

Consultation was wide and Manley’s administration listened to especially the Jamaican Bar Association, and Human Rights activists and even the Director of Public Prosecutions. It became an Act of Parliament in 2002, some 12 years after, with important procedural oversight inclusions.

Jagdeo’s Wire Tapping Bill will from the time of tabling to time of becoming law take some 12 weeks! What consultation is that, Indra! As a “child” of Dr. Jagan, do you think you make him proud?

---

---