How about building trust through political horse trading?

Mar 20, 2010 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

How does the government intend to build political trust which could lead to power sharing if it continues to monopolise the chairmanship of parliamentary committees?
Government cannot be allowed to chair oversight of its own performance. To do so makes the whole process of parliamentary scrutiny farcical.
The purpose of an oversight committee is to exercise scrutiny over the policies and performance of the sector in question. Since it is the government which under the Constitution is responsible to parliament for the performance and policies within each sector, it is unacceptable for any Minister to be appointed to chair an oversight committee which has to scrutinize the actions of the administration, regardless of whether the minister in question is the subject minister responsible for the sector being overseen.
All members of Cabinet are expected to subscribe to the principle of collective responsibility, sometimes also referred to as collective co- responsibility.
Under this system any decision of the government is supposed to be supported by all members of Cabinet.
Therefore, for example, all Ministers of the government are expected to support the government’s policies as regards the security sector. So regardless of whether the Minister of Home Affairs or some other minister chairs a parliamentary oversight committee of the security sector, that person is required under the principle of collective responsibility to support those policies. It is therefore unacceptable for a government minister to chair any parliamentary oversight committee.
This role is best left to the opposition. There is in place a parliamentary oversight committee on finance. It is called the Public Accounts Committee and it is rightly chaired by a member of the opposition. And rightly this is how it must be.
Conceding the Chairmanship of a parliamentary oversight committee does not affect, reduce or compromise in any way, the executive’s constitutional powers. The work of a parliamentary oversight committee cannot encroach on the executive’s decision-making and accountability responsibilities which are provided for under the Constitution.
These committees cannot make policies or pass laws or dictate what should happen within the security sector. So what is the fear?
There are two possible scenarios to explain the government’s rejection of the opposition chairing the parliamentary oversight committee on security. The first could be that the government is in the mode of monopolizing all the political space in Guyana and does not wish to cede and inch to the opposition. Hammie Green refers to this trend as a push for total hegemony.
The second explanation is the fear and suspicion that the government has about the opposition using such concessions to dominate the government. At Babu John this month, the President expressed such fears.
The government has, however, expressed the need for political cooperation and it is also on record as saying that it supports inclusive government but it sees the building of trust as a necessary ingredient to deepening this inclusiveness.
Politics is about compromise. So how within the spirit of compromise can we reconcile the fears of the government about the opposition taking advantage of political concessions with the demands of the opposition for a more meaningful role in governance structures.
It must be conceded that agreements reached between the PPP and the PNCR have been subject to criticisms by the ruling party that the main opposition acted in bad faith. One recalls the agreement which was said to be reached by the two sides following the 1994 local government polls in which the PPP would eventually gain the mayorship of the city. The PPP is yet to do so.
One also recalls the outcome of the agreement reached between the PPP and the PNCR concerning the election of Chairpersons and Vice Chairpersons of regional councils, following the 2006 general and regional elections.
The PPP has alleged that in one instance the spirit of the agreement was breached.
If one also examines the tempestuous relations between the PPP and the PNCR in the Region Fourcouncil- one in which the PNCR holds the chairmanship- the conclusion may be drawn that the conditions are not yet right for genuine political cooperation.
While the government, given its superior position, should always be the more magnanimous, the main opposition party should equally appreciate the fears that it has injected into the government over alleged bad faith in agreements which were reached between itself and the ruling party.
This brings us right back to Hammie. He wants to see some form of power sharing before the next local government elections.
He should take the lead in this process and as an act of building trust cede the Mayorship to the PPP until local government elections are held. Is Hammie willing to do this? Is the PNCR willing to finally allow the PPP the chance of having its own Mayor of Georgetown, even if it is just for a few weeks?
Perhaps a deal can be worked out whereby the PPP cedes chairmanship of the parliamentary oversight committee on national security in return for the Mayorship of Georgetown.

---

---