Dear Editor,

THE Public Relations Officer of the City Council has written to the press about consultations done to determine the priorities for the Georgetown municipality, and about pervasive criticisms being levelled “every time the Georgetown Municipality seeks to employ a new revenue-earning venture” (Kaieteur News, November 19, 2016).

Indeed, we have read numerous articles and letters criticising the operations of the City Council, and especially its methodology, which appears to be rooted in the principles of disregard, disrespect and bullying. Some of the issues have been highlighted by councillors who had the good sense to make citizens aware of the state of transparency and accountability in the City.

Although the people have a part to play, the state of affairs should be placed at the feet of the Council.
Engagement of the citizens on setting the priorities for the City is a step in the right direction, and I applaud the City in earnest, rather than facetiousness. Consultation should be pursued fervently, as it provides empowerment and self-determination, which should be hallmarks of local government.

Nevertheless, the City should elaborate on the thoroughness of the engagement. The PRO’s letter does not indicate whether determination of the approaches to garnering the requisite financial inputs was addressed with the people. This is important, since it should be recognised that agreement on the priorities does not imply approval of the methodologies, if these were not specifically discussed.

The Council, furthermore, should consider the broken trust, for which it needs to make amends. An excerpt from a column article by Transparency Institute Guyana Incorporated (TIGI), which was published in Stabroek News of May 4, 2016 with the title “Institutional Trust and Citizen Engagement in Guyana”, indicates that:
“The public tends to have greater trust in institutions when the authorities are not expected to abuse their powers to intentionally cause harm, or serve narrow interests without consideration of the harm done. In return, the citizens tend to defer more to decisions made by officials, and to voluntarily comply with rules (Khodyakov, 2007).”

The City Council has, in my view, not yet earned the confidence of the people, and it should not be surprised that it is not necessarily trusted or allowed to determine just measures for generating revenue. Once trust is broken, the road to redemption can be long and perilous. In the current scenario, wherein the top echelons of the City Council so recently appeared to be strangers to the concepts of democracy, transparency and accountability, it is perhaps unrealistic to expect rapid change in the attitudes of the people — especially when some city officials remain obstinate and unrepentant, and when some of the issues remain unresolved.

The City should continue on the path of citizen engagement. To build trust and to inform everyone, the City should provide accurate and complete information on its operations in a timely manner, and it should become more responsive and accountable to the people.

Tipping a low-trust or a distrust equilibrium requires sustained effort and genuine commitment to democratic principles. The PRO and the Council are faced with an uphill task in this regard, and it is important to consider that impatience can be counterproductive. I wish to take this opportunity to commend the upstanding councillors who have, and continue to, put the citizens first.

Yours faithfully,
TROY THOMAS, PhD