We need a think tank for brainstorming developmental needs

Dec 28, 2015 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In developing countries a chasm often emerges between an elected government and the population, a divide characterized by variances in political expectations and delivery, approaches to governance, developmental priorities, inclusivity and the use of consultative tactics.
In the past, countries that had adopted a socialist approach to government relied heavily upon bureaucratic systems of centralized planning.
Of course this had many drawbacks, as the levels of participatory consultation and public inputs were often very low, and often government policies and programmes clashed sharply with the priorities and expectations of the wider society.
Guyana, in the 1970s and 1980s was no different.  The State Planning Secretariat (SPS) was established in 1977 as part of the Finance Ministry, and today continues to function as the principal agency for advising government on the use of state resources, even though Guyana has long since moved into being a market-led economy.  Bharrat Jagdeo is a product of that department. But who does the SPS consult with before arriving at a position on what initiatives to advise the government on pursuing?  And what is the consultative process used?
In developed democracies, organizations that comprise civil society form the cornerstone for participatory planning and inclusive governance.  Such diverse organizations represent different interest groups in society. They ratify key areas of concerns for their constituencies, help to streamline developmental objectives and channel upward to government their recommendations, which then go into shaping public policies and programmes.  Can such an approach be welcome in Guyana?  Is there room at the top for contributions from such organizations?
Developed democracies normally set aside public resources to encourage the formation and functionality of civil society organizations.  In short, such approaches bridge the divide between government and the governed, and help to focus more on meeting society’s needs and expectations.  Such organisations, because of their dual role of guiding government and representing social interests, also attract funding from the private sector, academic institutions and even the donor community.
Socio-economic development can be considered a gradual, guided process, which is often characterised by choosing from among competing / conflicting interests and demands for limited public resources; wasted initiatives and resources; lack of social ownership and sometimes even apathy. Political conflict and ethnocentric tendencies, as in the case of Guyana, can completely derail otherwise good initiatives, and push back the whole developmental process.  How can we change this state of affairs, and make socio-economic development a fully participatory and engaging process?
We need to first see that socio-economic development is broad-based, and may affect many stakeholder groups, depending on the specific initiatives being pursued.  We have many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in our midst, representing a variety of interests such as industry, commerce, labour, social and human rights, religious and secular causes and the professions. And then there is academia, though not as organized.  Some NGOs are well-established and strong and have good external support linkages.  Others are feeling their way through the growth process.
If we can get broad-based cooperation among these NGOs and have academia fully involved, we can have a working basis for advancing a National Council for Socio-Economic Development (NCSED), a ‘think-tank’ for brainstorming developmental needs, ideas and proposals.  This will likely limit the political manipulations, tokenism and bickering that accompanies every developmental initiative in Guyana, and it will have development undertaken in the genuine interest of the population.
We can envision the approach as having NGOs in each socio-economic sector nominate permanent representatives to the NCSED who together put forward initiatives, debate and ratify the aims, goals and objectives of each initiative, and give a generalised working model for how these are to be resourced and implemented.
This body should be a permanent structure, sustained internally by its own fraternities, and from external financing provided by donors, and statutorily by the government.
The NCSED should have a permanent secretariat comprised of academics and professionals (including legal advisers), either volunteers or paid employees whose task is to conduct the background research for the initiatives, figure out how best the implementation process should work, conduct cost-benefit analyses for each initiative, facilitate public discourses and compile and forward development proposals to the government.  The secretariat and the NCSED as a whole should become the owner of those proposals and civil society’s agitator for government’s action on such proposals.
The NCSED can also become civil society’s watchdog and scrutineer for government-led initiatives.  This can be done by ensuring that a consultative process is followed and that the public’s input is obtained.
Such an approach, as described above, becomes necessary in the absence of a constituency-based political system, and our long history of partisan politics, corruption, underdevelopment, and mammoth spending on things which brought little or no benefit to society.
The revelations we are now hearing, such as the operations of NICIL and irrecoverable (but preventable) losses in every sector, cannot convince anyone that government has always worked in the best interest of society.
If civil society cannot be afforded a place at the table, and we continue to allow any government to run amok, we should stop calling ourselves a democracy.
Khemraj Tulsie

---

---