Federalism vs. Decentralisation

Jul 18, 2010 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

There is no disagreement among all the political parties of Guyana that governmental functions and powers are too centralised. This is not surprising in light of the manifest failures of the integral state created in 1980. Even the World Bank in 2003 had occasion to criticise this aspect of Guyanese governance. Several UN agencies, such as PAHO have insisted that their programs be implemented in a decentralised fashion. In fact PAHO’s areas of demarcation fall exactly as the proponents of federalism have proposed the new state boundaries.

Following the Constitutional Reform process in 1999 (precipitated by violent street protests and ethnic violence) the PPP and PNC instituted a Special Committee on Local Government Reform. Eleven years later, while they are still haggling over specifics, it is reported that the village councils will be “strengthened” in a move to make governance more responsive to local needs. However, the reforms still locate local Government in terms of “decentralisation” – which means there will remain a “centre”. And this is the contradiction in the proposals of the PPP, PNC and all those who claim that “power must be returned to the people”.

Both the PNC under Desmond Hoyte (who had been the architect of the Regional decentralisation initiative introduced in 1980) and the succeeding PPP regimes while complaining about the failure of the present arrangements have adamantly rejected Federalism. For instance, the PNC, in its submission to the Constitution Reform Commission in May 1999 had proposed that:

“There can be no real democracy without a strong, vibrant local government system. This system would provide for the decentralization of power, the devolution of authority, and the participation of large numbers of people in the decision-making process in their communities…There should be a clear understanding and acceptance that the Regional Democratic Councils and the smaller Local Democratic Organs are part of the Local Government system and not agencies of the Central Government. To this end, therefore, the RDC’s should now be organized accordingly. They should exercise the power to raise revenues by taxation and otherwise and be responsible for a range of activities in their respective Regions as identified by law.”

The PNC was recommending that the powers and “legal framework” of the RDC’s be constitutionally enshrined. If this were to be done then the only difference in their proposal on the question of allocation of competencies would be to add the federalist stricture that the central government cannot unilaterally alter the defined powers of the regions. Passing further “lesser” laws will not convince the centre to keep out of local affairs. If the PNC and PPP and others are serious about the Regions having the powers to execute their programs they should be aware that in the past the centre always altered the regional powers by diminishing them. They may be legitimate reasons for rejecting federalism but the need to have a less centralised government in not one.

Unlike the “regional system” the powers or “competencies” of each province would be constitutionally defined and changes in the Federal or States powers would have to be mutually agreed on. The central government would not be able to unilaterally change the power relations. Each State, at a minimum would have its own administration – headed by a Governor, its own Police Force, and the power to tax and spend. These powers are not to the exclusion of the Federal Government’s, which would adopt an overarching national perspective and normally have complete control of defence and foreign affairs. Its national domestic program supplements, and is coordinated with, the provinces’ programs

The prolonged period of top-down government has unquestionably destroyed much of the initiative and competence of the local communities to manage their own affairs. We agree with the renewed focus on the revival of the Village Councils, reportedly contained in the latest local government proposals. After the abolition of slavery in 1834 the freed African slaves had established several villages on their own initiative. They created Village Councils to run the affairs of their communities and these Councils were the incubators of much of the leadership in the African community and formed their links to the county and national Governments. The Councils, through its various committees such as drainage etc., was able to develop local expertise in managing organisations.

The introduction of the National Democratic Committees (NDC’s) that agglomerated several villages into one entity, while on paper may have appeared as a logical progression of the Village Council arrangement, ignored the historical and geographical realities of the village movement. Residents were still focused on problems in their particular village and this focus as reinforced by the geographical fact that the village are strung linearly along the single main road and are each separated from their neighbours by canals. Village councils are the way to go.

The Amerindians were always the most excluded from the running of their own affairs. Subsequent to the Regionalisation plan, both the PNC and PPP Governments have attempted to resuscitate the indigenous village governance structures. In early 2004, the PPP initiated a training program to inculcate the rudiments of village governance in the Toshaos or chiefs of the various villages. This was commendable.

Any revival of the Village Movement in other parts of Guyana will have to be accompanied by an intensive program of education in the running of these bodies. Indian- dominated villages, especially the ones sponsored by the sugar plantations, never achieved the levels of self government as the African villages. All community councils will have to be revitalised because of the past neglect by policymakers.

Only a federalist approach guarantees the principle of subsidiarity – where decisions affecting the people are made at the lowest possible level.

---

---