I’LL never forget the day I heard that the President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana was stepping in to help address the implementation of parking meters in Georgetown. Really, I felt a bit sorry for him, given that Guyana’s governance structure seems sometimes to land every problem at his door. Dedicated leader that he is, he stepped in with zeal, but he can’t have expected that this would be a part of his job description.
I want now to follow up on my previous article about constitutional reform, as well as last week’s article about term limits in the hope that I can weave together the points of consensus that I think lie at the heart of reform conversations. Every soul in Guyana, after just an instant’s reflection, must surely recognise that something is not quite right about our governance system if the most senior member of the administration must step in to deal with issues as minute as parking meters.

Can you imagine the President postponing preparation for an international summit so he can work his way through the endless legal terms of a parking meter contract? It is in a way very unfair to our highest office-holders to place so much responsibility on their shoulders. They, like each and every one of us, can only be expected to do so much. My suspicion is that Guyana’s leaders are often subjected to the phenomenon commonly known as “decision fatigue.”

To the astonishment of my roommate at the time, I once walked into an H and M store and purchased eight of the same grey, button-up dress shirts. My shirt-wardrobe now consists of only white, black and grey dress shirts and white, black and grey T-shirts. Why the monotony? As a young professional,I increasingly felt worn down by trying to keep up with constantly changing trends while balancing a demanding job and research project.
My mind was clouded and I desperately needed to clear it. This is what “decision fatigue”, or exhaustion coming from having to make a large number of decisions, is all about. It causes underperformance by distracting and wearing the brain down. Eventually, I decided to give up the responsibility for dressing aesthetically, by simply buying a range of quality clothes that matched no matter what I wore. Problem solved.

Being able to differentiate between the problems which truly matter, and those which do not, is key to effective leadership. Famed military writer Sun Tzu says: “He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.” But with much of local government funding concentrated in the National Assembly, I can understand why all pleas end at the President, who exercises significant authority over the agenda of that body. And so, because everyone knows he has the ultimate authority, even when he intends to follow Sun Tzu’s great advice, this may not be possible.

This points to the central question of constitutional reform — how do we relieve the President of burdens that shouldn’t demand his attention, while ensuring he/she still exercises enough authority to push through national development projects? I don’t claim to be objective by any means, but a Martian dropped on earth could tell that this is the heart of the discussion. Executives over the years haven’t wanted to give up any power, because they need that authority to develop the country quickly and that’s why each and every one, across political parties, has been hesitant to reform.

This is not to deny that there can be constitutional abuse or efforts to abuse (as those are to be expected in any democracy); but to say that ignoring the perceived need for concentrated power is a major impediment to gaining broad support for reform. One way or another, it seems we have decided on a government interventionist approach to development, and that usually means concentrated power. If those reformers concerned about abuse are serious, they would advocate for a reduced government role, which would understandably entail a more restrained Executive.

I will build out the final key pillars of the reform structure it seems might be possible in a further column, but I want to write quickly about something which details how important it is for us to get this structure right. One of the senior professors at the college I attended in Massachusetts once referred to former President Jagdeo as “the good President.” This was in the wake of the former President’s efforts on behalf of forest conservation, when it seemed for a moment he was spearheading international green efforts.

That his name came out of the mouth of one of the foremost academics in the world was monumental, as this meant the former President was being discussed favourably at the highest levels of power internationally. For a moment I was really proud. But then, in the years that followed, the Amaila project was mired in allegations of corruption and Skeldon turned out to be a slow failure. The former President’s light faded, his legacy tarnished. I can’t help but wonder if the reason those projects fell apart is that, with the endless demands our constitution puts on him, he took his eye off the ball at a critical moment. Maybe I’m wrong, but I bet looking back at those failures , even he might think reform isn’t such a bad idea.