Dear Editor
FINALLY, the philosophy which informed (and still do) the People’s Progressive Party’s wayward actions in relation to local government when in office has been revealed by one of its now frequent spokesmen in his letter titled, “Opposition leader and PPP are the blockade to a dictatorship government” [KN, October 8, 2018].

Editor, Mr. Hussain, started his misleading conjecture by asking what difference has local government made after three (3) years since this administration returned power to the people as legally prescribed. He then went on to answer his own question by positing “I am absolutely sure that nothing much has changed in your communities or lives.” Well, well!
Mr. Hussain’s question reveals the PPP’s policy in relation to local democracy, i.e., they have no interest in people’s empowerment. Further, his response is a shocking admission that his party has taken the electoral support gained at the 2016 LGEs and has done absolutely nothing with it. This is bearing in mind that the PPP won 75 per cent of the neighbourhood democratic councils (NDCs) (46 of 62 councils) and was therefore empowered to use their majority to improve the conditions of communities and ultimately the lives of their constituents. After LGE 2016, the PPP repeatedly boasted of “slaughtering” the APNU+AFC at the polls. This logically begs the question, why should the electorate waste their vote again on the PPP candidates come November 12?

Editor, this administration is unwavering in its commitment to reinstating and to the institutionalisation of meaningful local democracy. Since our accession to office, much has been done to restore functionality to the system. There has been a total shift in the trajectory of local governance, aided by a policy redirection. This redirection marks a distinct break from the culture of control and domination of Local Democratic Organs (LDOs) as was practised by the PPP, to the strategic embrace of decentralisation and collaboration, in accordance with existing constitutional prescriptions. With amendments to the legislative framework mainly Act No. 15 of 2013, Municipal and District Councils (Amendment) Act and Act No.5 of 2015 Local Government (Amendment) Act, local organs are now empowered to function with greater autonomy to make decisions in the interest of their constituents.

Apart from facilitating renewal of the democratic credentials of councils, after a hiatus of over two (2) decades, work has advanced in equipping LDOs to promote good governance, accountability and transparency. This has been achieved through a coordinated programme of institutional strengthening and capacity-building to ensure that local organs deliver effective, efficient and sustainable public services. Much of course remains to be done to revive this ‘patient’ which has been exhumed by this administration.

Many training sessions and workshops have been held, aimed at building the capacities of both the elected and administrative arms of councils to not only manage, but to also develop their areas. The most recent being the National Conference of Local Democratic Organs (NCLDOs) convened by President Granger, following which Cabinet endorsed a recommendation by the delegates of the eighty-0ne (81) councils for an upgrade in the salaries and the payment of stipends to local officials.

Mr. Hussain in his usual tirade of untruths, stated that “since 2016 the coalition government refused to increase and delayed subventions to assist LAAs…” To the contrary, subventions to local organs have increased since 2015; from $12 to $15 million each for municipalities (with the exception of New Amsterdam and Linden which received $16 million and Georgetown $24 million), while subventions to the NDCs increased from $3 to $4 million. Additionally, all subventions are processed, using the formula prescribed in the Fiscal Transfer Act 2013 in a timely manner.

Editor, while central government remains committed to supporting LDOs, it is a constitutional prescription that these organs be economically viable and have an adequate resource base for the management and development of their area as per Article 72. The continued reliance of local organs on central government for funding is both undesirable and unsustainable.

Editor, the efforts of the ministry to update the property valuation system, the capacities of which were intentionally degraded for the past three (3) decades by Mr. Hussain’s party in an effort to solidify its control over LDOs, has now been packaged by the same party as a measure in taxation and is being used to fuel their local government campaign.
The ministry on numerous occasions has debunked this erroneous claims of writers such as Hussain that central government will be setting the rates and imposing ‘additional burdens.’ It is the council democratically elected by the people that will determine whether to revise or keep the current rates.

Editor, the PPP by its actions continue to demonstrate clearly that it is not interested in community development and peoples’ empowerment, which is what primarily underpins local government. Local democracy to PPP is about the numbers, “we got more.” Any councillor, regardless of political affiliation, who is sincerely interested in improving the lives of their constituents, has an ally in this government.

On the basis of Mr. Hussain’s pronouncement, I say unapologetically to eligible voters: A VOTE FOR THE PPP IS A VOTE FOR UNDERDEVELOPMENT – THEY WILL CONTINUE TO USE IT TO PREVENT THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR COMMUNITY.”

Yours sincerely,
Ronald Bulkan
Minister of Communities