FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE FOUGHT FOR

Nov 14, 2010 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

By Raphael Trotman
AFC Leader

I had intended to write exclusively on Freedom of Information legislation, but after the events of the last 24 hours involving my opposition colleague, Winston Murray, I am left to consider the frailty of life and the relative insignificance of our own individual positions in the wider scheme of things.
The Prime Minister’s letter addressed to the Speaker of the National Assembly, and copied to me signaling that his government intends to introduce Access to Information legislation by January 2011, was a cause for brief celebration, but how fleeting that celebration must be when we realise that we are all made of flesh and blood and will bleed and die in the same way – whether we are AFC, PPP or PNC, or even none of the above, and that all “victories” are miniscule when lined up against the greater purpose and expectation of our lives.
It is time that we find a better way to relate to each other and to do the people’s business if we care and are as sincere as we claim to be. Yet, our politics continue to be defined by “one-upmanship”, brinkmanship, subterfuge, hate and destruction. It is the type of politics that sees our comrades falling from stress-related illness when they should be going down gracefully and with pride and dignity intact.
This point was forcibly and wonderfully driven home just weeks ago by Mr. Keith Scott, MP, who returned to his place in the opposition benches after a prolonged illness and absence. Apart from thanking everyone from every quarter who aided, prayed for, and supported him, he took the opportunity to ask “: why are we fighting each other” and to state that there has to be a better way to live and to govern without paradoxically building and destroying; and loving and hating.
Winston Murray, like many comrades past and present, has dedicated his life to serving the people of Guyana and while he may occupy a place on the opposition side, his contribution both known and unknown, has been outstanding. I don’t know what his fate will be but I hope that whatever the outcome, his contribution shall not be forgotten, or his work erased. His work must stand for something national, and not be defined narrowly as being that of Winston Murray of the PNCR.
And now I return to Freedom or Access to Information legislation. No one can doubt that this legislation has become a powerful and indispensible tool in the fight against corruption and the promotion of democracy and people’s empowerment. I can argue ad nauseam about its virtues and hit my head against a brick wall until the PPP administration says yes. Many will say that nothing comes out of the PPP without a fight and I know that only too well, but on reflection I ask: must we have to fight for everything – even that which we all acknowledge is good and necessary?
I have always been a believer that there is good to be found in everyone and everything. I still believe that there are people in all the political parties, both within and outside of the National Assembly, who, together with civil society and ordinary citizens, can make a wholesome contribution to the transformation of this nation. I believe the point as to the necessity of this legislation has been made and leave it up to the PPP to acknowledge this or to throw it over the shoulder, simply because its genesis is in the opposition camp. We must await now to see whether the PPP is prepared to break out of its self-constructed cage and reach across and embrace something that is good even for them, or whether it will insist on “their” way as being the only way or no way at all.
The Bill I submitted in November 2006 took several months to prepare and has been branded a “cut and paste job” even though it is tailored after Trinidad and Tobago’s legislation and brought the best of many jurisdictions together. It would be expected that our legislation resembles, as far as possible, the legislation that exists in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and soon to be in Barbados. This is known as harmonization and helps as a catalyst in political and economic integration.
Then, there is the now known fact that he Bill was reviewed, upgraded and by an internationally recognised NGO in the Human Rights Initiative, which advises governments and organisations throughout the Commonwealth on Access to Information legislation. The government is well aware of all this, but instead has chosen to drag its feet, castigate me personally, and to suggest that the Bill presently before the house is “weak” and inappropriate. A more mature and nationalistic government would have commenced a dialogue with the various parliamentary parties in a Special Select Committee to go through the available draft and to work on it to produce something of which we can all be proud.
Freedom to access information is an inalienable right guaranteed by our constitution in Article 146. This Bill, No. 26 of 2006 is not Raphael Trotman’s Bill, but the People’s Bill. I had made a public pronouncement some time ago that the passing of Access to Information legislation is more important to me than the passing of the Bill that I presented. Therefore, if the PPP cannot for once be magnanimous, then I will have to be, by giving way to allow their Bill to be presented so that they can be allowed to say “Is we own”!
For the sake of Winston Murray, Keith Scott and all those of us who suffer and suffocate in the intolerable conditions and atmosphere of the putrid political system of Guyana, we pray that a better day will come when we can see each other as different but equal, and begin to share the responsibility together so that when we die, we would die knowing that we stood for something not narrow and individualistic, but broad and all-encompassing.
In February, 2010 in my response to the 2010 Budget I stated words which I wish to re-state and underscore as being relevant: “rather than embrace an ideal of nationalism we have preferred instead to each execute our individual roles, according to our individual interpretations; but have done very little, or nothing collectively, to build an indivisible, secular, democratic and sovereign Republic of Guyana after 40 years. Ultimately, the people have suffered and fled by the thousands to greener pastures.
We have meandered for 40 years and now find ourselves at this juncture; a juncture that beckons a new opportunity for us to act in accordance with the Constitution and to establish and “forge a system of governance that promotes concerted effort and broad-based participation in national decision-making in order to develop a viable economy and a harmonious community based on democratic values, social justice, fundamental human rights, and the rule of law; and one that celebrates our cultural and racial diversity and strengthens our unity by eliminating any and every form of discrimination.” I say therefore, let us choose for ourselves this day, wither direction goes the Republic of Guyana, its people, and its elected representatives. For us in the AFC, we choose to take the turn at the intersection and re-commence that journey that was the vision of the founding fathers of this Republic, and we invite all members of this Honourable House, and the constituents they represent, to share this journey with the AFC.
I submit that since the monarchy was replaced by a Republic in 1970; then we should have gone on to change the way in which important decisions are made for the people of Guyana. Not having done so has created a paradox of gargantuan proportions. We put away the regalia in 1970, but retained the systems and structures; thus not completing the full transition that we were meant to undergo.
Guyana’s Republic has different features than say Barbados’ or Jamaica’s. We have ethnic, racial, cultural and religious differences and strands that have to be reinforced, and at the same time braided, to give us our unique People’s Republic. We cannot maintain this Republic if we continue to practice our combative, competitive, and confrontational style of governance.
It is time to change and time for a new Republic. It cannot be Indians for Indians, Africans for Africans, Amerindians for Amerindians, Portuguese for Portuguese, Chinese for Chinese, and Mixed people for Mixed people. But rather, Africans and Indians for Africans, and Indians, and Amerindians, Chinese, Portuguese and mixed inclusively, and alike. I
It is only when we stop living for ourselves, but for the sake of others, that we will truly experience the re-birthing of this nation. We are a multi-layered, multi-ethnic, and multi-partisan society. It necessarily follows that our state, our republic, has to be configured if it is to survive and thrive.”

---

---