VISITING the site of the seventh exercise of the coalition government’s, “Bringing the Government to the People” exercise in Linden at the Wismar Market, there was an impressive display Ministry of the Communities’ booth, of the proposed regional flags and emblems.

No doubt this innovation, which is in effect significant in the planned advancement of decentralisation of the system of local government, inclusive of the creation of capital towns for spearheading regional social development, has been highlighted at all of these engagements with the public so far.

One will recall at its official launch in 2017 at the inaugural conference of the National Regional Development Consultative Committee(NRDCC),which the PPP representatives boycotted, it had been agreed that the specimen flags and emblems of each region be displayed on regional office buildings and those of Neighbourhood Democratic Councils; and that the representative officials from these entities lead the discussions about the idea and reason for these individual regional representative symbols, encapsulating all views from citizens. The programme actually introduced the flags and symbols for discussion, following which consultations would be held.

The idea of regional flags is indeed very good, as well as timely, because it is a natural advancement and completion of our regional system of local democracy. Therefore, those who are now seeking to impute inferences about secession and border issues, need to be reminded that our regional system as initially conceptualised and planned was not some fly-by-night concept that came about for political purposes.

Conceived as part of the local democratic system, it was a genuine plan to fashion a new understanding of the local democratic structure that would become decentralised in its daily structure and functions, in which the people would become the pivotal deciders of their daily lives.

It is instructive that each of these 10 regions was carefully demarcated, in terms of their economic resources. These include their revenue abilities, slated for individual regional economic planning and development, and the contribution that they would be mandated to make towards individual regional socio-economic development.

This was about decentralisation of functions, which means devolution of both power and authority to the individual regional components for their proper regulation and function as viable, economic self-sustainable units.

This was what the framers of the regional system envisioned at the time of its conceptualisation; for it was highly inconceivable for a country so large in geographic space, and rich in natural resources, to still first have its daily decision-making that affects the entire nation be confined to the capital city; and second, its natural resources that are so abundant, not to be marshalled for proper utilisation.

The fact that President David Granger and the coalition government have begun what can be considered as the final process of making the regional system as originally intended to function, since 2015, a national reality, is testimony to the understanding that the country must now be moved to another level of its development; identifying its geographical components and their individual strengths and contributions towards the ultimate goal of the creation of capital towns.

And what better way for this to be aided than by the elevation of each region to be represented by flags and emblems that celebrate their unique economic strengths, and topographical features? Region One(Barima Waini); RegionTwo (Pomeroon – Supenaam); Region Three (Essequibo Islands–West Demerara); Region Four (Demerara-Mahaica); Region Five (Mahaica-Berbice); Region Six (East Berbice- Corentyne); Region Seven (Cuyuni –Mazaruni); Region Eight (Potaro-Siparuni); Region Nine (Upper Takutu -Upper Essequibo); and Region 10 (Upper Demerara – Upper Berbice ), will no longer be referred to by numbers, but by their geographical names with their symbolic native flags.

This is not for political mileage, brinkmanship, or show. Flags, in the instance of a country, are symbolic of identification, meant for the representation of a nation’s sum total of its historical evolution and natural particularistic. They are meant, in some cases, to be reminders of its struggles, and triumphs over adversity.

But above all, they are about symbols of personal pride in the embodiment of a nation’s citizens. And so, it must be asked, what is wrong with each region being identified by its own flag that must be a source of engendering pride in what his/her region represents in terms of economic resources; its development potential, and the role they as individuals can play in the realisation of its goals? Would it not be a source of regional affiliation, for citizens to identify with their regions’ flags anywhere, fluttering proudly, giving a sense of belonging? One is certain that any citizen of Region Six, residing in North America, would proudly acknowledge the flag and emblem of his/her region, seen in the United States or Canada. It will be no different to a Californian, for example, doing so on recognition of his/her state’s flag, if in Guyana.

So many democratic countries, apart from their national flags, have similar representations that uniquely identify their geographical components as states, provinces, cities, and towns. The fact is that every geographical part of a country, especially as large as Guyana, and even larger, has the right to be identified by their uniqueness, whether economic, or socio- cultural, and be proud of what they contribute to the sum total of being nationally cohesive.

Guyana cannot claim to be advancing socio-economically, especially preparing for an economy that will be motored by oil and gas, with a national administrative system of governance that is still deeply rooted in its archaic past, and resisting efforts to be removed from such a berth of backward development, wholly dictated from the centre. The nation had witnessed such an unenlightened form of local governance that had led to the regions’ development, pegged to a centralisation of development, for reasons of political control. That process only resulted in an oppression of creative development opportunities.

With the gradual dismantling of such a decrepit system of local governance, replaced by a medium of de-concentration, which allows for the responsibility of public services at the local level, capital towns are being evolved as the natural vehicle of regional socio-economic and administrative development.

The concept of flags and emblems for each region should be discussed by citizens in their respective regions, with all information being made available as to concept and reasons.

We do believe that it is the right way to go, in terms of fostering regional pride as a geographical entity and part of Guyana. All Guyanese, we opine, must be proud of, not only their country, but also of their regions of origin. The flags and emblems are to be seen, not only as fostering that sense of regional well-being, but also bringing about due recognition of the regional system that commenced in 1980, as each region continues along the road to self- sustainability.