Social justice can be fully realised under conditions of a functioning national democracy

Feb 21, 2022 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

February 20th marks World Day of Social Justice. The theme for this year’s observation is ‘Achieving Social Justice Through Formal Employment.’
World Day of Social Justice will be observed worldwide under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) and the International Labour Organization (ILO).
As Guyana progresses rapidly with the expansion of its formal economy as demonstrated in growth of the extractive industry and to build out speedily its manufacturing and services sectors, formal employment in these sectors is expected to grow exponentially and will play a major role in the country’s future development.
While Social Justice Day 2022 will focus on formal employment, at the same time, the call has been made for governments to intensify their search for solutions to achieve sustainable development, poverty eradication, the promotion of full employment and decent work, universal social protection, gender equality, access to social wellbeing and justice for all.
These are all big-ticket social issues. They should be considered as works in progress since governments in both developed and developing countries, because of constraints in social spending, coupled with a host of internal dynamics, they have not been able to accomplish these objectives fully.
But what about Guyana? How well are we managing the national task to achieve these objectives? And have their realisation, large or small, impacted the lives of the Guyanese people?
Cognisant of our national peculiarities and the fractured nature of our political environment, it would be fair to say that prior to the emergence of our oil and gas industry, significant advances were made in the areas of sustainable development, gender equality, universal social protection, access to social wellbeing and justice for all. However, challenges still remain in the areas of poverty eradication, full employment and decent work.
The full realisation of the various elements that constitute social justice in a Guyanese context, cannot and will not be an overnight phenomenon. Nevertheless, their successful realisation can be accomplished step by step within the framework of a national democracy whose major tasks are good governance, democracy in all its aspects and empowerment of the people at all levels, economic growth with social justice, as well as the fullest exercise of human rights – civil and political, economic, social and cultural rights in keeping with the UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Important factors related to the quest for social justice are human development and good governance.
In this regard, USAID recently added its voice to the national conversation on good governance, a factor they consider applicable to Guyana at this time.
In their August 2021 report, USAID suggested that a way be found to establish a ‘functioning democracy based on ‘a power sharing rather than ‘a winner-take-all’ mentality.’
Implicit in USAID’s call for the establishment of a ‘functioning democracy’ is the contestable view that Guyana’s extant democracy is dysfunctional, and for this to be corrected, a power sharing formula as opposed to the ‘winner-take-all’ arrangement should be the preferred option.
A functional democracy is deemed to be the outcome of free and fair elections through the expressed will of the people.
However, in light of the fractured nature of our domestic politics, characterised by persistent stand-offs between government and opposition, USAID has signalled to the Guyanese public that a ‘functioning democracy’ could prove helpful.
Assuming that USAID’s views are on point, the following question would arise. Will the formula advanced by USAID, bring about the full realisation of social justice in all its manifestations?
Guyana is not alone as regards perceptions and misperceptions of fairness in society, racial justice, poverty and inequality, the criminal justice system, the juvenile justice system, rights of non-citizens, its drug policy, health and human rights. Thus, to arrive at an appreciative and agreeable understanding between government and opposition on these critical matters may prove difficult, if not elusive.
Truth be told, the power sharing formula proffered by USAID is not new to Guyanese. It has been bandied about since the early 1990’s and therefore begs the question; whether the conditions in Guyana have matured to facilitate a meaningful dialogue on the formula or will it continue to be an elusive dream given the long-standing extant tensions between the two major political parties.
It is to be recalled that at the 13th Biennial Congress of the PNC, then party leader Desmond Hoyte, told the gathering “whether we call it ‘power sharing,’ ‘shared governance,’ ‘inclusive governance’ or any other name – appears to be an idea whose time has come.” That was in 2002. Twenty years later, the time is yet to come to move away from the practice of ‘winner takes all’ politics.
However, the problem may not necessarily be the formula. Rather, it is probably the prevailing development model and strategies that have become outdated and inappropriate at this juncture of our country’s history thus making social justice objectives fully achievable.
Going further, the USAID Report makes reference to the need for a ‘paradigm shift’ but only in relation to Guyana’s foreign policy with the US in the light of Guyana’s ‘massive oil reserves’.
This must be coupled to America’s interest in the country’s political stability in view of ‘Guyana becoming a more important partner for the US in the region…’
Concerns about Guyana’s political stability is exemplified by USAID’s claim that ‘Guyana will continue to face unstable socio-cultural and governance conditions until ethnic inclusion in the decision-making process is institutionalised.’
Further, the Report points out that ‘Guyana’s political instability raises concerns that the country is unprepared for its new found wealth without a plan to manage the new revenue and equitable disburse the financial benefits.’
In this regard, ‘equitable disbursement’ should be viewed as a euphemism for social justice.
These are serious concerns raised by USAID and points to the need for a new development paradigm that requires serious dialogue with stakeholders based not only on political and economic considerations but also on ethical and moral principles. In the circumstances, USAID Report suggests encouraging dialogue around National Development Strategy. It is hoped that this suggestion does not fall on deaf ears.
Former President, Donald Ramotar raises the issue of dialogue in another context. In his letter to the press headed; ‘Let us recall our history to bury the past and move beyond the narrowness of race’ (S/N 16/2/22), he makes the following observation ‘It’s time for an honest and open discussion on all these issues so we can heal this society and build a strong and united National Democratic State…’
Social justice can be fully realised under conditions of a functioning national democracy where all stakeholders, through their combined efforts, jointly formulate a strategy that is national, democratic and all embracing.

Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee

---

---