Federalism vs. Decentralisation
Much of the angst boiling over in Guyana, whether, for instance, over policing deficiencies or developmental neglect, comes from the over-centralisation of governmental functions and powers. This is not surprising in light of the manifest failures of the centralised Colonial State we inherited and the even more centralised authoritarian state created in 1980.
Following the Constitutional Reform process in 1999, the PPP and PNC instituted a Special Committee on Local Government Reform. More than a decade later, the recommendations are yet to be tabled in the National Assembly. But from reports, their aspiration is still ‘decentralisation’. Power, then, will still emanate from a “centre” from which it is expected to flow outwards. The latter will never happen. Unless the “centre-periphery” links are given Constitutional protection, through federalist mechanisms, to ensure that the periphery is consulted by the centre, real power will never be shared.
Desmond Hoyte, architect of the Regional decentralisation initiative introduced in 1980, began to loosen up the state functions on his accession to the Presidency in 1985. But both the succeeding administration and opposition rejected Federalism even though the latter later complained about the failure of the regional arrangements.
For instance, the PNC, in its submission to the Constitution Reform Commission in May 1999 had proposed that: “There should be a clear understanding and acceptance that the Regional Democratic Councils and the smaller Local Democratic Organs are part of the Local Government system and not agencies of the Central Government. To this end, therefore, the RDC’s should now be organized accordingly. They should exercise the power to raise revenues by taxation and otherwise and be responsible for a range of activities in their respective Regions as identified by law. “
The PNC was implicitly recommending the powers and “legal framework” of the RDCs be constitutionally enshrined. If this were to be done, then the only difference in their proposal and that of those who propose the federalist option on the question of allocation of competencies, would be to add the federalist stricture that the central government cannot unilaterally alter the defined powers of the regions. Passing further “lesser” laws will never keep the centre out of local affairs.
However, unlike the present “regional system”, in a federal arrangement, the powers or “competencies” of each province would be constitutionally defined and changes in the Federal or States powers would have to be mutually agreed on. The central government would not be able to unilaterally change the power relations as has been their wont the world over.
Local Government
The prolonged period of authoritarian government has unquestionably destroyed much of the initiative and competence of the local communities to manage their own affairs. We agree with the renewed focus on the revival of the Village Councils, reportedly contained in the latest local government proposals.
After the abolition of slavery in 1834 the freed African slaves had established several villages on their own initiative. They created Village Councils to run the affairs of their communities. These Councils were the incubators of much of the leadership in the African- Guyanese community and formed their links to the county and national Governments. The Councils, through its various committees such as drainage etc., was able to develop local expertise in managing organisations.
The introduction of the National Democratic Committees that agglomerated several villages into one entity, while on paper may have appeared as a logical progression of the Village Council arrangement, ignored the historical and geographical realities of the village movement. Residents were still focused on problems in their particular village and this focus as reinforced by the geographical fact that the village are strung linearly along the single main road and are each separated from their neighbours by canals.
Indian-Guyanese, by and large, remained on the sugar plantations for another century after slavery and those that moved off mostly remained rural-bound. The new and massive housing schemes created by the sugar companies from the early fifties, were all centred on the plantations and the affairs of these communities were run by a Sugar Industry Labour Welfare Fund (SILWF) which perpetuated the paternalistic rule of the “big manager” of the plantation. The few Indian-Guyanese villages formed outside the ambit of the sugar plantations, on rented land, did not establish village councils. To extent far greater than the African-Guyanese community they are deficient in the mechanics of running and organising their local affairs.
The Indigenous Peoples were always the most excluded from the running of their own affairs. Their traditional village structures were undermined by the Catholic Church, which, in a de facto manner, assumed administration over them.
Subsequent to the Regionalisation plan, both the PNC and PPP Governments have attempted to resuscitate the indigenous village governance structures. However the contradictions in the centre-periphery linkages have undermined real, sustained development.
It is time that the federalist option is placed on the national agenda.