Dear Editor,
AS Guyanese, we all knew what the absence of local government elections did to the rights of communities and their citizens to determine independently what they wanted as socio – economic development. It was a right that we all knew, irrespective of political affiliations, which had been deliberately suppressed by the PPP/C during their sojourn in government.
Not only was it flagrantly anti-democratic in nature, but also a gross violation of the cardinal principle of self -determination, as part of a collective whole. In plain words – we were denied the right to have local government elections for a little over two decades. This has to be a record anywhere within the CARICOM constellation of states. Editor, this allowed for wholesale political interference in the daily matters of communities, with the primary objective of exerting political control. Whatever development at the local level was done was primarily in areas that favoured the PPP/C. It is a fact that is undeniable.
Two examples will suffice: within a short while of the PPP/C assuming office, not only did it remove road construction, traditionally a municipal function, from the M&CC, but it ensured that the streets within the Kitty ward, of significant PPP/C support, were repaired. Concomitantly, it took several protests from the residents of Norton Street, Lodge, and a decisive burning of tires to have that stretch of crater- strewn roadway done.
Examples such as the above were replicated in many, many locales throughout the coastland – ensuring construction of roads, and other social amenities especially, done in politically friendly areas.
With the staging of local government elections, since March, 2016, a major plank in the national democratic framework has been restored – the empowerment of people to decide on matters that will influence their lives. For the first time in this country’s modern local government history, local authorities are encouraged to work together with their communities for the common good of their residents. I perceive this to mean that the era of political interference was over. However, there is a new situation, not altogether unexpected, that has arisen in many of these local authorities. And it is cause for serious concern, as expressly articulated in a media report a while ago by the Regional Executive Officer, Region Two, Rupert Hopkinson.
In a nutshell, I conclude, from the REO’S complaint – that there is a concerted effort to frustrate economic development in that region. He gave the example, in the case of successful contract awardees not being informed immediately, so that they can begin work in a timely manner. According to Hopkinson, sometimes as long as a month elapses, before contractors are notified. Other aspects of his daily official activities were laid bare, such as intercepting inflated vouchers, and bringing to an end other illegalities that had become cultural. It is not business as usual, anymore, in Region Two.
Editor, this is primarily a case of stymying development of communities, thereby with the aim of creating the impression in the minds of residents that nothing is being done to improve their lives. It is a deliberate and desperate act of creating discord between the coalition government and the people; more so, a blatant case of economic sabotage. What other description is there to highlight such a planned strategy that is now a feature of the PPP/C’s daily orchestration against the government in the municipalities controlled by the PPP/C?
In Region Five, this has taken the form of outright refusal of PPP/C councillors working work with the government for the betterment of the many communities. Even President Granger has had cause to highlight this anti-national behaviour in that particular region, “as resisting the government.”
To those councillors, no doubt, aided and abetted by their political party, the PPP/C, I ask the following question – is this how the newly found right bestowed by local government elections is being used? Is this what residents, albeit taxpayers, expect from such a collective that they elect to represent their communities’ hopes and aspirations? Why continue to sacrifice the rights of residents on behalf of a political party, whose record of national leadership was entirely geared towards friends and relatives? What did they really do for the poor and oppressed? How could these people, both male and female, continue to offer themselves as representatives of the people?
Regards
Earl Hamilton