The right to inclusive decision-making

Jan 30, 2021 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

The next few months are critical for shaping the legal and policy framework that will govern Guyana for years to come. Government has indicated its intent to move forward on electoral and constitutional reform – albeit as two distinct processes. Reform of the all-important Natural Resources Fund Act (NRFA) is also on the cards. While this resolve is good news, the factor determining the success of these undertakings will be how well public consultation on them is managed.
In a world dominated by money, consultation is vulnerable to being undermined by ‘State capture,’ a situation in which laws and policies are effectively shaped by powerful groups and individuals to their own advantage. Guyana’s woefully flawed political system, already deficient in accountability to voters, is particularly vulnerable to capture of this nature.
For any claim to inclusivity in decision-making to be meaningful, a robust challenge to elite capture of the Guyanese State is needed. The most significant civic achievement in this respect came in the form of securing inclusion of Article 13 in the Constitutional Reform process of 2001. Article 13 guarantees “No person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of participating through co-operatives, trade unions, civic or socio-economic organisations of a national character, in the management and decision-making processes of the State.“ However, to date no substantive gains from this achievement have been realized.
Article 13 represents the most advanced articulation of good governance in Guyanese law. This formulation recognizes the civic sector organizations as constitutional actors in meaningful and effective decision-making in public life.
The reality, however, is that governments, despite the constitutional weight of Article 13, have continued to be disdainful of civil society as a sector. In this respect, Guyana lags behind other CARICOM countries. The GHRA, for example as a local not-for-profit organisation, was legally incorporated in 1979 as a Company Limited by Guarantee and required to file company tax returns at the end of every year. While the format has somewhat changed, the alternatives to company’s incorporation retains legal and patronizing restrictions on the voluntary sector.
Additional obstacles to voluntary sector development are the absurd requirements imposed by the banking sector, requiring annual financial reports and business plans at the beginning of every year as if non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were operating as businesses. Indeed, the financial sector’s ability to impose draconian anti-money laundering legislation on every citizen with a private bank account is a prime example of how ‘State capture’ works.
The business community continues to be the default sector for political consultation. No other sector – whether trade union, professional, faith-based or voluntary – enjoys any such privileged access. This situation is sustained, both financially and politically, by an international community, which has well and truly nailed its colours to the mast of market-driven development. Dutifully attentive politicians lavish tax waivers, duty-free concessions and all manner of subsidies to keep the sector happy, particularly foreign direct investment.
This mismatch of sectoral access to decision-makers: the one fawned over and the rest left to their own devices is the major challenge to even-handed consultation on laws and policy. Moreover, the stressfulness of daily living – aggravated by the Coronavirus – also challenges the ambition of participating in policy consultation.
What should be avoided in pursuit of creating a more robust civic sector is a trend surfacing in civil society itself – encouraged by the international community – towards creation of a civic equivalent of the Private Sector Commission (PSC). While the captains of industry and commerce lobbying Government on behalf of the larger business community with its members consent is suited to that sector, this is not an acceptable model for the voluntary sector.
The legitimacy of civic leadership is rooted in grass-roots activism. However, the authentic delegation of power from grass roots in apex organizations is too readily replaced by ‘core groups’ and ‘steering committees’ thereby marginalizing the majority of members. This process is also undemocratic, leaving the isolated ‘leadership’ ripe for ‘capture’ by political actors.
Trends of more transparent and democratic civic governance better suited to Guyana have begun to emerge in recent years. During the past administration, the model adopted to manage the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) marked a significant positive development in governance thinking. Moreover, the fact that the new Administration has elevated governance to Ministerial level also signals an intention to recognize the significance of giving life and substance to Article 13 as a precursor to revitalizing the quality of broad-based consultations.
Executive Committee
Guyana Human Rights Association

---

---