‘Constitutional reform: don’t drop the ball again’

Jan 23, 2024 Letters

Dear Editor,

Having promised all and sundry to support constitutional reforms to establish inclusive governance, the PPP spent months trying to negate the main factor that gave rise to this demand by orchestrating an undemocratic local government process to demonstrate that it was the ethnically broad-based political party and that here was no need for the kind of fundamental constitutional changes that inclusiveness will require under existing conditions. As if his government is incapable of chewing gum and walking, the president apologized for the delay by blaming the recent escalation of the border quarrel between Venezuela and Guyana!

If Desmond Hoyte and the PNC had not dropped the ball during the constitutional reform process at the turn of the century, Guyana would today be in a far better governance space rather than, apart from Haiti, democratically trailing all its Caricom partners by miles. Hoyte’s major error was to go into the constitutional reform process with an incorrect understanding of what Guyana is and thus failed to give proper weight to the difference between constitutional/legal requirements and strictures emanating from human will.

For example, when Cheddi Jagan was dilly-dallying and attempted to personalize the need for constitutional reform, the wily general secretary of the Guyana Trade Union Congress, the late Joseph Polydore reminded him, as he reminded me when we were negotiating the Trade Union Recognition Bill, that the unions’ demands were not to protect them against Jagan or me, but the less well-intentioned operatives that may well follow. Unfortunately, no one can envisage the totality of future demands, which is why a regime for constitutional reform is entrenched in the current document. But even the rules Polydore wanted and received, and the myriad others later provided by the 2020 reforms, proved insufficient, largely because of the traditional majoritarian political framework left by Hoyte et al.

There is another pitfall that one needs to guard against. Recently, the Stabroek News told us that, ‘The institutions which have been created, such as the constitutional commissions and the sectoral parliamentary committees, are not functioning either at all or optimally…The problem, therefore, outside of inclusive governance, is not the constitution, but implementation of its provisions.’ The circularity here is palpable: if inclusive governance that is essential for the implementation of vital aspects of the constitution is absent, the constitution is fundamentally flawed. Some would say that it becomes even dangerous since, for example, in the case of vital judicial appointments, it made fundamental changes that established situations that can be viewed as unchangeable! At every step of the way constitutional reforms must be considered holistically.

A few unforeseen negatives aside, the PPP got its wish and Desmond Hoyte belatedly recognized that the reform process he struggled for left in place the unworkable winner-takes-all majoritarian political system. It therefore behooves his successors to focus on and clearly understand the meanderings of its context and emerge from the next round of reform with a system that focuses on democratic governance and equitability and all other matters will fall into place.

We are in budget season and acquiring resources and spending them on numerous huge infrastructure projects can no longer be considered an achievement. Nevertheless, you can be assured that since that PPP has caused this country to sink into a democratic abyss, that is all it has with which to attempt to dazzle the masses. More importantly, the upcoming 15 days or so of budget discourse will leave the regime’s unilateralist preferences largely unchanged. Thus, it is an appropriate occasion to consider again what a proper budget process should look like and identify some of the major obstacles that will have to be overcome if during the next round of constitutional reforms, the ball is not again to be dropped in this crucial arena.

Firstly, the 2021 Open Budget Survey (OBS) ranked 120 countries on a score out of 100.Sixty-oneor higher indicates that a country is publishing sufficient information to support informed public debate, and on this issue South Korea with 59 points and the United Kingdom with 54 topped the ranking. Jamaica, with 18 and Trinidad with 7 points are the only two Caribbean countries in the index. On the transparency of the budget process, Georgia is at the top with 87, UK has 74, Jamaica 50 and Trinidad 34. On the budget oversight process, Germany with 91 is at the top, UK has 67, Jamaica 52 and Trinidad 35. Note that while Jamaica is not economically the richest, as suggested last week by way of the V-Democracy index that placed it at the top of the Caricom democratic table, here again by way of the world’s only comparative assessment of transparency, oversight, and participation in national budgets, it again appears at the top.

Secondly, in terms of the parliamentary treatment of budgets, international best practice recommends that ‘The government’s draft budget should be submitted to parliament far enough in advance to allow parliament to review it properly. In no case should this be less than three months prior to the start of the fiscal year.’ https://www.oecd.org/governance/budgeting/Best%20Practices% 20Budget %20Transparency %20-%20complete%20with%20cover%20page.pdf.

In Caricom, only Suriname’s 1987 constitution sets out an approach that matches the above international recommendations, which suggests that in terms of governance, it is false to even suggest a comparison between what it is taking place in Guyana and its Caricom partners. In a nutshell, the budget debate/parliamentary process in Suriname takes place between October and December for the budget to be enacted on 1^stJanuary. The National Assembly can amend, approve, or reject the budget and after it is read in October, i.e. Budget Day, the National Assembly begins the debate with a series of meetings open to the public. During this period, civil society groups are encouraged to engage with members of the relevant National Assembly standing committees. The contact information of MPs is posted on the internet and lobbyists are advised to use evidence-based approaches. The progress of the debate can be interrupted several times if the government fails to respond in a timely manner to requests made by the National Assembly. A budget is approved by a majority vote of the National Assembly, ideally before the start of the new financial year on 1^st January (‘Suriname’s Budget Debate takes 3 months:’ VV, 13/02/2022).

I need not labour the point that in Guyana, the highly subjective nature of the consultation process after which the regime produces a draft budget and the 15 days discourse during which Parliament meets as a committee of the whole, where ministers and others can provide any rough-shod response to the most serious questions and the government normally uses the most miniscule ethnic majority to return with a budget that is essentially the one it tendered, is democratically unacceptable.

For the ball not to be dropped again, the reform process must be adequately institutionalized to prevent budgeting from resulting from minimalist public involvement and in a unilateralist mishmash of programmes and projects. Particularly in Guyana’s ethnic context, a democratic budget must reflect the views and aspirations of the representatives of substantially all of us.

Regards,

Dr. Henry Jeffrey

Constitutional, governance, Guyana, PPP, reforms

Latest News