Universal terms are serious and must be treated with deserving respect

IN developing terms that impact universally and nationally on society, there are always agreed definitions and such must be sought after in order to achieve the objectives.Yet it has become customary in our society to hear terms bandied about and abused, maybe they sound appealing and those users think it is a successful ploy in giving the impression that they are committed to the terms used.
The nation has been bombarded that Guyana had seen the “restoration of democracy” in 1992. But from 1992 successive governments have violated laws, international charters and conventions with impunity; court rulings against the government have been disregarded; there have been no local government elections in more than 15 years, though they are constitutionally due every three years; citizens/workers’ rights have been trampled with impunity by government, whose foremost responsibility is to the people; National and Regional Elections were vitiated by the High Court; a party was awarded a parliamentary seat it did not win; this nation has witnessed its highest amount of extra-judicial killings; there have been State-sponsored death squads; media suppression; the nation’s patrimony distributed among a clique, and so forth.
In a society where democracy is valued/practised, these characteristics would not have been features, much less prevalent, but citizens are being conditioned to accept that democracy has been restored in 1992 when the pillars for democracy have been treated with contempt daily. Now having been conditioned to accept a reality as favourable, the society is now being bombarded with terms such as inclusionary democracy, national unity, shared governance and social cohesion, buttressed by simplistic arguments that cannot withstand scrutiny in keeping with international principles and what the constitution prescribes.
Social Cohesion as seen by the United Nations, “Is the glue that holds society together.” Its analysis, seen through three values speaks to: i) social inclusion; ii) social capital; and iii) social mobility. It means in pursuit of social cohesion these three pillars must inform national conversations, policies, actions and implementations. On shared governance the constitution is explicit in its spirit, intent and application. In the nation’s highest decision-making forum, the National Assembly, there is a government and opposition side, where it allows proposals from the two sides, checks and balances, and consensus. The parliamentary sectoral committees further facilitate the sharing of legislative responsibilities and management of the business of the State.
In the Executive, according to the constitution, the Leader of the Opposition is referred to as a member. This is also enforced in this instrument, where several issues require meaningful consultation and in some case agreement between the president and opposition leader before decisions are arrived at. The opposition shadows the Executive, inclusive of the president and ministers, since this office is supported by a shadow cabinet who are members of parliament.
There are three tiers of government, namely national, regional democratic council and local government in the form of neighbourhood democratic councils and municipalities. Since 1992, no political party has won all 10 administrative regions, nor all the neighbourhood democratic councils and municipalities. This is a real-life example of shared governance in action. Yet for more than 15 years this nation awaits local government elections that would devolve power to the grassroots. Further, we await legislation to deepen and strengthen the regional and local organs to pursue their own self-determination in addressing the development of their communities.
National unity is another term bandied around, seemingly not from what is enshrined in the constitution, but from a standpoint of attractiveness. The constitution recognises the diverse strain in society and requires celebrating our racial and cultural diversity to end discrimination and in the creation of a perfect society, protecting the right to freedom of association and dissent, and guaranteeing protection from discrimination on the grounds of race. These are the basic foundations in forging national unity, yet we see them being observed in the breach.
Then there is inclusionary democracy. The term is ensconced in the constitution at Article 13 which is the Principal Political Objective of the State, and placed there in 2001 as a result of constitutional reform. This article expressly states: “The principal objective of the system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.”
Serious examination of this article will reveal that this too has been observed in the breach. For instance, respect will see meaningful involvement of stakeholders in national, regional and local government planning, respect for the will of the people in regions not won by the executive branch, and efforts taken to engage groups on matters that have direct impact on their lives. But the fanciful and preferred notion that inclusionary democracy constitutes members of the opposition being co-opted into the Executive, devalues the seriousness that led to the creation of this article to bring about national unity through social cohesion. For one to agree with the application of inclusionary democracy being bandied around, then Forbes Burnham, Desmond Hoyte, Cheddi Jagan and Janet Jagan, who have all co-opted persons from the party of their rivals were ahead of their time.
It would also mean since the enactment of this article in 2001,that Bharrat Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar have been practising inclusionary democracy. And if they all have, then there is no need for making this a focus for development to rally the nation around and forge national unity, social cohesion and shared governance. What I am saying here is that the seriousness within which the named terms have been developed, they are not being respected, applied and implemented. What is obviously happening here is that though structures exist to make real the terms thrown around, there is an absence of understanding political will and commitment to bring to life the spirit and intent of these structures and make them work for the people.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.