Chapter 12:

Reforming Our Government:

Getting Results

Contrary breeze ah mek crow and eagle light on one line.

(When there is trouble, sometime enemies must work together.)

            Guyanese proverb

Good Governance

Civil Rights and Race Relations

overnment must be guided by a love for the country and a bona fide commitment to create a state in which true democracy flourishes.  Government has the responsibility to provide effective, visionary and inclusive leadership in order to ensure the elimination of discrimination and racism.

 Democracy

Government must encourage the people’s involvement at all levels. To ensure that the processes and fundamentals of an inclusive democracy honour the rights of its citizens, it must organize oversight committees.

And it must establish local systems that have the power to formulate their own developmental plans and strategies and the authority to enact local laws.       

All of these goals require the presence of good governance.
 

Good Governance

Governance is the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs.  It comprises the complex mechanisms, processes, relationships and institutions through which citizens and groups express their interests, exercise their rights and obligations, and mediate their differences. 

Good governance is characterized by six qualities:

 

!          Participation

"          A government must encourage the participation of its citizens in expressing their views on issues that concern them. Citizens must be consulted on matters of national or regional interest. 

 

!          Transparency

"          A government must be characterized by a system of transparency that makes it possible for citizens to assess all aspects of the government’s transactions and activities.

 

!          Accountability

"          A government must govern through accountability.  Transparent systems of governance are beneficial to its citizens only when there is accountability.

 

!          Effectiveness

"          A government must demonstrate effectiveness by expressing realistic objectives and formulating competent strategies to reach them.

 

!          Equity

"          A government must encourage equity by allowing for individual initiative regardless of race, religion or class.  No persons may be discriminated against or given special privileges.

 

!          Strict Adherence to the Rule of Law

"          A government must encourage strict adherence to the rule of law and assure that all Guyanese can live and prosper without the threat of violence or coercion. 

 

Political Agency and the Call for Party Reform

he history of nations across the globe is marked by an unending series of variations on one theme: the manner in which institutional agencies capture power and wield it to their advantage. Whether in totalitarian regimes or democracies, wedge politics, racism, and fear are the commonly used tools of the political trade. 

Nowhere is this more true than in the world of Guyana’s politics.  Public service is a high calling, and Guyana has a long history of producing leaders of merit and steel.  Both major political traditions of Guyana have produced leaders who took the long view, who reformed their respective organizations, and sought (albeit imperfectly) the greater progress of our people.  And both political traditions still are represented in part by public servants of great skill and good faith who are actively seeking public discourse worthy of their offices and calling. 

But for the most part, these proud and distinguished political heritages have been abandoned and the dreams of their founders left to collapse, as politicians with a lamentable lack of vision take the lowest road of public discourse. 

Good people and proud heritage notwithstanding, Guyanese public life is marred by extreme partisanship, lawlessness and—in some cases—politically inspired and condoned sectarian violence.  

Political Agency

hether on the acropolis at Athens, in Rome’s senatorial cliques, or in the great political parties of Europe, political agency has brought together those of like mind to advocate and manage the political process. We call these agencies political parties. 

Political parties don’t just happen of themselves.  Studies of the evolution of political groupings point to two major ingredients: a powerful leadership personality and a defining issue.  In Guyana, both factors led to the beginnings of the two major parties, as well as most of the smaller political groupings.

But what happens when parties grow old and survive their founders?  In such cases, from the Communist parties of Russia and China to the Labour Party of the United Kingdom, they face enormous difficulties in continuing their role of political agency.

Political agency is difficult to maintain without a strong party organization, an active and cohesive leadership, and a cause to believe in.  And perhaps the most important variable of all is the creation of a process that allows the party to be truly democratic in its own governance.   Whether it is the United Kingdom’s New Labour or the United States Republican Party, their internal democratic processes not only keep such parties relevant, but actually enhance their power. Shortly we will examine the United Kingdom’s New Labour Party to elaborate on this point. 

Both major Guyanese political traditions have had strong organizations in the past, whether they have been in power or in opposition.  Unfortunately, this strength does not always lead to constructive political participation.  Often, racial politics poison the atmosphere and prevents progress.  Witness the recent willingness on one side to abrogate constitutional responsibilities and refuse to participate in parliamentary debate. 

In contemporary Guyanese politics, leadership is sorely lacking. Both sides seem depleted of good ideas, and this results in an utter lack of positive civil discourse.  Despite the presence of extraordinary public servants in both traditions, they have not fashioned a debate that moves the nation forward.  Why not?

The reason is that democratic processes, organization, leadership and a cause cannot be complete without public participation.  But Guyana’s problems have seemed intractable for so long and so many of its citizens have sought success in other lands that the average citizen is effectively disenfranchised by the current political system.

Is there a way out for the mass of Guyana’s citizens?  Throughout this book, we have argued for non-political leaders to join the political discourse. At stake is no less than the future of Guyana.  Our nation possesses talented people rich with potential.   Business people, civic leaders, religious leaders—in fact, all citizens—must join in the cause of building a better future for all our countrymen.

The question is: how best to engage in the debate?  It is clear from many developed and developing countries that although fringe parties affect the shape of political discourse, in the long run their influence is limited. In Guyana too, although many political parties are being started all the time, debate and public discourse remain remarkably unchanged. 

From this, we must conclude that political agency must be reformed in the most powerful institutions through the effective interplay of non-political actors with the party system.

The Call for Party Reform

oth major political parties in Guyana appear to be reaching internal crises.  The passage of the founding generation, the strain of long periods of power and opposition, and the spiritual void left by racial politics have all led to uncertainty and transition.  Visionaries in the leadership ranks of both parties recognize the need to reach across ethnic boundaries. However, the success of these strategies in an electoral cycle is as yet untested.

Although both parties appear to be taking steps towards internal reform and toward reaching those outside their base of traditional support, the process of turning themselves into multi-ethnic political agencies is likely to be a long-term task requiring business and civic support and pressure.  

Examples abound of long-lived party organizations that desperately needed to reform themselves and engaged in a lengthy struggle to do so. The United Kingdom’s Labour Party, mentioned earlier, is one such instance.

To cast light on the process of internal political reform, let us have a look at the steps taken by New Labour, which brought it to an undreamed-of position of power and influence.

Becoming a Party of Power: 
How the British Labour Party became NEW LABOUR

he British Labour Party is one of the most storied parties in Western democratic history.  It has been closely identified with the major ideological battles of the twentieth century, and in many ways has mirrored the social democratic movements in continental Europe. 

In the 1920s, Labour first achieved power as the party of the British working class in the 1920s under a Socialist agenda.  Then the Labour Party became a major political force under the leadership of Ramsay Macdonald (a foe of Sir Winston Churchill), and in 1929 was voted into office to replace Churchill’s conservatives.

After two elections in quick succession, the Labour Party was forced to seek a National Unity government with the Conservative Party in early 1931.  Macdonald remained Prime Minister for a period and was later dismissed by the more dominant, less radical Conservative leader, Stanley Baldwin. 

When Baldwin’s Conservatives won a majority in the 1935 election, they abandoned the National Unity government, which left Labour out of power. This only changed following World War II, when Labour became the surprise winner of the 1945 election, removing Churchill’s government from office. 

However, Labour’s early postwar successes in nationalizing industry and creating of what became known as “cradle-to-grave” socialism, or the “nanny” state, were short-lived experiments.  Although the Atlee government of 1945 lasted a full parliament, it ended in disgrace in 1950, and Churchill returned to power. 

Throughout much of the postwar/Cold War period, Labour’s ideological basis remained unchanged. As a rule, Conservative governments remained the party of power.  Labour’s commitments to state ownership and large, expensive social programs and its subservience to organized Labour interests kept party platforms and ideas frozen. And its focus on statist agendas and class warfare and its tie to organized labour meant that Labour governments could be brought down by strikes, as happened throughout the late 1960s and 1970s.

Leadership in Labour changed slowly.  Many Atlee-era ministers lasted well into the Callaghan governments of the late 1970s, leaving key party figures either tainted by scandal or policy failure, or marginalised to radical positions on the extremes of the party.

It became increasingly clear in the late 1970s that the combined impact of failed socialist economic and monetary policies, coupled with the power of trade union leaders, meant that Labour could not successfully govern.  A new Conservative leader, Margaret Thatcher, successfully painted the Labour party as comprised of incompetent, failed ideologues beholden to the unions and incapable of government.  Thatcher’s Conservatives were swept to power in 1979 with massive majorities in the Commons.

Change came extremely slowly to Labour.  Beginning in 1979, its longest period of opposition started with the election of another party elder from the 1950s and 1960s, Sir Michael Foote.  Foote led Labour badly through the early Thatcher years, including the period of the year-long coal strike and the Falklands war.  After losing the 1983 election and being blamed for allowing Thatcher to “break” the unions, Foote was replaced by Neil Kinnock, a fiery Welsh orator of a new generation who were ideologically rooted in Old Labour ideas.  Perceived as an agitator beholden to the trade union leadership, Kinnock tried unsuccessfully to achieve reform in the late 1980s, and his tenure came to an end in 1992 after the party lost to the Conservatives for the fourth time, now under the leadership of John Major.

Unhappy with Kinnock’s style, his ties to the trade union leadership, and his relative unpopularity with rank-and-file party members, the party turned to a moderate, mild-mannered Scottish barrister, John Smith, in 1992.  Smith led the Labour Party to recognize that class warfare and socialist politics did not work well in modern Britain.

Instead, Smith focussed the Labour Party on issues of competent governance, and his style and moderate policies won wide public acclaim.  In the spring of 1994, Smith’s leadership led Labour to win more than two-thirds of local council elections and to narrow the Conservative majority to fewer than five seats in the House of Commons.

Smith’s success resulted in the progressive democratization of the Labour party and the de-radicalization of the party manifesto.  Since the 1920s, a dominant share of the party executive had been directly elected by the trade unions without respect to the wishes of the regular party members.  This executive group also elected the party leadership and determined candidates for the House of Commons.  Party finances were dominated by inflows from union coffers, thus giving the Trades Union Congress a stranglehold on the party executive.  Under Smith, a progressive campaign to lessen the representation of the TUC on the party executive was begun. 

Further efforts to remove out-dated policy commitments during the early 1990s were also successful, as Smith moved to jettison Labour’s commitment to nationalize industries of all kinds.

In the summer of 1994, John Smith died unexpectedly of a heart attack, leaving the Labour Party in upheaval.  Tony Blair, then the Shadow Home Secretary, quickly consolidated the support of other leading candidates such as Gordon Brown (now Chancellor), and become the party leader.

Blair’s period as leader of the Opposition focussed the Labour Party even more on moving to the centre-left of Western democratic politics.  Accepting many Thatcher reforms and abandoning long-held Labour opposition to privatization, Blair removed many of the obstacles that Labour had faced with the British electorate.  Blair’s vision of an entrepreneurial society buttressed with a competent public services sector co-opted the elements of Thatcherism that the British supported.   A committed Atlanticist, Blair reassured the pro-American elements of the electorate that he was certainly not what Thatcher had successfully pilloried as the “looney left in cloud-cuckoo land.”

Blair further pushed the party in 1997 by changing its name to New Labour and focussing on public services and building New Britain: a modern, socially conscious, free market democracy.

Much of Blair’s success has been based on internal party changes.  New Labour is one of the most democratic major parties in the Western world.  A directly elected party executive, fully independent of any interest groups, has presided over the largest increases in both party funding and membership rolls in the party’s history.  Unfettered by trade union objectives, Blair’s policies can focus on competent governance.

As of this writing, New Labour has reshaped itself as the “party of power” in Britain, and has virtually ensured the organization of power for three successive parliaments. 

Summary

ow does this relate to building the future of Guyana, and Guyana’s restoration of hope and prosperity?  The story of New Labour teaches us that all of Guyana’s institutions, including the major political parties, must similarly begin the slow process of reform. For the parties on both sides of the aisle to become effective and positive political agents, much reform is necessary.

The history of the United Kingdom’s New Labour Party demonstrates the need to eschew ideology in favour of good governance, to support change when it is clear that failed policy initiatives do no more than “preach to the choir,” and to reach beyond the traditional party base to become an inclusive, multi-class, multi-ethnic, modern democratic political party. 

Both of Guyana’s major traditions have much work to do. And the lessons of history abound to demonstrate the ample rewards of moving forward.

Steps Toward Good Governance

The People, Yes

ood governance is the result of actions taken by good people to a good end.

As a first step toward good government, we must inculcate the values and practices of democracy.  To this end, we must examine ways of restructuring government agencies so as to encourage the free expression of ideas. In policy and in general spirit, the government must support and promote the exercise of free speech, awakening people to the importance of exchanging ideas, philosophies and approaches in the formation of good and useful governance.

 

!          Increase democratic involvement.

!          Restructure government agencies so that new ideas of democracy can flow freely in all directions.

!          Encourage freedom of speech in order to facilitate the exchange of ideas and philosophies.

 

Good governance entails an efficient government.  We must eliminate bloated government agencies and bureaucracies.  Power and control must be wrested from these agencies, particularly in the realm of economic development.  Instead, government must stress the importance of encouraging entrepreneurship and private sector growth.

 

!          Encourage private sector growth.

!          Downsize government and bureaucracies in order to encourage entrepreneurship and private sector growth.

 

Strong Government

 Overbearing government is an impediment toward nation-building. But a weak government is likewise unable to accomplish great things.  Guyana needs responsible and responsive, strong government.

 

!          Strengthen the Executive Branch of Government

"          Open the cabinet to participation by technocrats.

"          Establish advisory councils to the president in areas such as foreign relations, economic development and human resources development.

"          Institutionalise quarterly meetings between the president and leaders of opposition parties to discuss matters of government policy.

 

!          Strengthen the Legislative Branch of Government

"          Institutionalise the committee system in Parliament.

"          Subject all legislation to scrutiny by substantive committees.

"          Broadcast parliamentary debates.

 

!          Strengthen the Judicial Branch of Government

"          Increase the number of judges and magistrates so that cases can be disposed of in a reasonable period.

"          Review emoluments and conditions of service for judges and magistrates to make positions more attractive.

"          Computerise courts, and upgrade registry and support functions.

 

!          A New Structure of Central Government

"          Group ministries for better coordination and integration in order to facilitate a more cohesive approach to nation building.

"          In particular, coordinate ministries concerned with the social sector (health, education, social services and housing) within a social policy planning framework.

"          Create new portfolios for tourism, science and information technology, and a new strategy for development.

"          Broaden some existing portfolios to include other aspects of human resource development.  The labour portfolio, for example, will—in addition to addressing collective bargaining issues—deal with all aspects of labour market supervision and regulation.

 

The Spiritual Core of Governance

 Even more important than the specific institutional reforms proposed above is the growth of the belief that government must be open, that those who are meritorious should be rewarded, and that those who are able to should help others.

 

!          Strengthen Institutions

"          Practice open government.

"          Create a meritocracy.

"          Create a spirit of volunteerism.

 

!          Revivify Guyana’s Spirit

"          Restore and intensify the level of morality that reflects the rich spiritual heritage of this diverse nation.

In Sum

In the final analysis, we most strengthen ourselves when we touch the lodestone of our core character, our moral responsibility and our spiritual heritage—a heritage that makes all Guyanese brothers and sisters under the skin.