Criticising for criticism sake!

Jan 16, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The main opposition party should not get into the mode of criticising for the sake of criticism.
In two recent instances, it has found itself opposing amendments to certain laws and making fanciful criticisms of these amendments; criticisms that have turned out to be lacking in merit.
When the government tabled an amendment to the local government laws allowing the Minister of Local Government to order elections for the position of Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of local authorities, there was big hue and cry by the main opposition. The amendment was described as being dictatorial.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The amendment, in fact, strengthens democracy, promotes greater accountability and guards against the monopolization of office in municipalities, neighbourhood democratic councils and regional councils.
It is therefore a far distance from being dictatorial.
The amendment simply sought to give to the Minister the power to have elections for certain office holders to be held so long as there is a resolution to this effect from the local authority itself or if the Minister so feels.
I suppose that it was this latter discretion that was granted to the Minister which caused the amendment to be labeled as dictatorial.
The fact of the matter is that while the minister in his own deliberate judgment can for example call for the election of Mayor within a council, it is not for the minister to decide who will win the election.
We have had, for example, a situation where there have been for years no elections for Mayor for the Georgetown municipality. The Mayor is not elected by constituents.
The mayor is elected by the councilors and thus regardless of when and why the Minister decides to call for mayoral elections, it is the councilors who have to elect the mayor.
Under the amendment passed, the councilors can also pass a resolution call for these elections and the Minister can, upon receipt of this resolution, order that such elections be held.
Did the main opposition which was so hasty in criticising the amendment consider the implication of an entire council moving, for example, a no-confidence motion in a Mayor and the said mayor still refusing to resign? This has happened before in Guyana.
By convention, once a no-confidence motion is passed against someone, that person should step down. However there is no legal enforcement of convention and either a Chairperson or a Mayor can refuse to step down even in the face of a vote of no-confidence.
Even worse, is the possibility that the Chairperson or Mayor can refuse to entertain a motion of no-confidence or a motion calling for a resolution for new elections in a council.
A person occupying the chair can use all manner of devices to discourage and prevent motions and calls for him or her to step down or to have new elections.
The amendment that was passed in the National Assembly allows the Minister to respond to these situations at suppressing internal democracy, and therefore the amendment is democratic and ought not to have been criticised by the main opposition.
No person occupying office within a local authority should feel that he or she is there for life or until the next local government polls are held.
There should be internal democracy that allows councilors to elect and remove their chairs and deputy chairs as the need arises and this legislation allows councils, not the Minister, to exercise such internal democracy within councils.
It is ironic that just days after describing the amendment as dictatorial, councilors aligned to the main opposition party actually tabled a resolution calling for elections for a chair in one municipality.
The second unmeritorious criticism coming from the benches of the main opposition concerns the amendment to the Trade Union Recognition law.
This amendment as piloted by the Minister of Labour sought to allow him to consult with a group other than only the Guyana Trades Union Congress, in making appointments to the Trade Union Recognition Board.
The opposition walked out of the National Assembly because they felt that the GTUC was not consulted on the proposed amendment. Had the main opposition stayed for the subsequent debate, they would have been convinced otherwise.
The amendment as passed does not marginalise the Trades Union Congress. The law prior to the amendment allowed the Minister to consult only with the TUC.
Under the new law, he can now consult with the most representative of workers and employees. The amendment allows him to consult more widely and thus is more democratic.

---

---