NATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS ARE NO DOORMATS

Jul 28, 2013 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

 

The media may be a national stakeholder but it is not a constituent member of the National Stakeholders’ Forum, and rightly so, because it would find itself in a conflict of interest, if and when called to take a position, be it through editorial comment or otherwise, on issues deliberated on by that body.
The presence of the media at a national stakeholders’ consultation held last Thursday at the International Convention Centre was to report on proceedings which were considered both by the government and the media as a matter of public importance. The government was there to consult with the stakeholders who were free to ask questions and make comments, which they did.
The role of media was to report on these proceedings, not to be a participant. The media knows this all too well. It knows what its role is supposed to be in these and similar events.
If, for example, there is a conference or training session taking place to which the media is invited, its role is usually confined to the opening session after which the proceedings of the conference or training programme are restricted to participants.
At the National Stakeholders’ Conference, the media was supposedly allowed to stay throughout the entire consultations. But the media should never interpret this as incorporating it as a participant, or granting the licence to ask questions during the actual consultations. The media however has the luxury during breaks to approach the participants privately and to solicit their views.
The government used this consultation to galvanize support for the proposed hydroelectric project which they see as being under threat from the parliamentary opposition.  But why they need to do so this is baffling and why the consultations were called at this unholy, however, is even more perplexing.
For one, the opposition has not expressed its disagreement with the construction of the hydroelectricity project. They are not even at this stage questioning the price or the technical details. One of the opposition parties, APNU, is on record as saying it lacks the technical capacity to analyze projects of this size, and another, the AFC, has deferred to the IDB. If they lack the capacity to do the analysis, how then can they be critical about the technical or financial merits of this project?
The reason for the opposition voting down a Bill to raise the debt ceiling of the country and to amend the hydroelectric laws has to do with horse-trading. The opposition wants concessions from the government on other matters.
The government, however, is adamant, and rightly so, that such major projects should not become the subject of political horse-trading. There are other areas where this should be taking place.
In this context, it is hard to see why the government would need to be explaining technical details to the national stakeholders. They never thought about doing this since the last elections, but now that support for this project is being made conditional on other political considerations, they are reaching out to the national stakeholders.
There are some issues over which politics should have no part. After the Lusignan Massacre a few years ago, the opposition was presented with the opportunity to use a stakeholders’ forum that was called in the wake of that terrible event to wrest concessions from the government in return for lending its condemnation to the terrible tragedy. The opposition, under Mr. Corbin, did not do this.
Instead, it unconditionally joined with other national stakeholders in condemning this atrocity. It did not use this opportunity to wrest concessions from the government, because it recognized that this was a national tragedy and there was a need for everyone to unite in its condemnation and rejection of such a terrible incident.
The PNCR could have refused to take the stance, as it did. It could have questioned why national stakeholder forums are only be convened when the government has a crisis on its hands. But it did not.
The PPPC administration has continued to treat the national stakeholders’ forum like its doormat, bringing it out when it needs to wipe its feet on some issue. This is unacceptable and should be rejected.
The government should not be selective in consultations with national stakeholders. These stakeholders should refuse to be treated this way.  This makes a mockery of these sessions, with the stakeholders’ own concerns not being dealt with. It is always about what the government wants to discuss.
This situation should cease and be replaced by more regular and structured consultations, with an agenda set by both the government and the stakeholders. These forums are an insult to the national stakeholders, because they are being convened only at the whim of the government and only when the government needs some support.
The media, in insisting that it should be allowed to ask questions, is only dignifying this charade which passes off as consultations, apart of course from the fact that not being a participant, the media enjoys no such prerogative.

 

 

---

---