On Wednesday last week the United Nations Development Programme signed a Memoran-dum of Understanding with the Speaker of the National Assembly for the supply of computers and related software for use in the Parliament Office.
It is part of the assistance the donor community is providing to operationalise the parliamentary reforms introduced by the amendments to the constitution to make the parliament more effective.
It is significant though that UNDP signed the contract for the supply of the equipment with the Head of the Presidential Secretariat; the signing of the MOU with the Speaker gives recognition to the independence of the legislative arm of government from that of the executive.
Since the various amendments have been implemented the independent institutions created by the constitution have been struggling for the space to assert their independence from the executive. The executive in the form of the Office of the President has been shamelessly using its financial clout to bring them into line. Case in point is that the Ministry of Finance withheld the salaries of the Elections Commission to force it to drop increases that had been paid to the Deputy Chief Election Officer. Another is the Office of the President vetoing a programme that would have exposed the clerk of the National Assembly and the chairmen of the Parliamentary Sector Com-mittees to the committee system of the Cana-dian parliament and the US Congress on the grounds that the offer should have been made through it.
The constitution provides for the commission to determine the salary and terms and conditions of its staff but the Office of the President believes that this is subject to the approval of the Cabinet. There may be some merit in their argument but it does not warrant the strong-arm approach it took in the Calvin Benn affair!
There are other independent bodies like the Judiciary which must go cap in hand to the Cabinet for approval to travel to conferences and other meetings. The Cabinet refusal of funds for Justice Claudette La Bennett to attend a conference comes to mind as another of the government's egregious acts in this regard, that calls into question the notion of the independence of the judiciary as provided for in the constitution.
The government boasts that the present constitution is the most advanced in the region. What it must realise then is that for the constitution to be really effective and achieve the objective of its framers the relationship between the executive and the other branches of government must be that of equals with no one branch subordinate to the others.
The independent institutions must be independent in name and nature and be peopled by persons of integrity who, though they may be nominated for membership by the government or opposition, would see the interest of the nation as paramount to all others once they have taken their oath of office.
Their members and particularly the persons who head them must be prepared to assert the independence provided by the constitution and not give in meekly to the demands of the executive.
The society as a whole must also be prepared to support and promote the independence of these institutions. To fail to do so would be to encourage the executive in their efforts to undermine the system, however well-intentioned they think those efforts are.
In the search for persons to be nominated to sit on the commissions and other bodies the parties, government and opposition, must seek to identify persons with the relevant expertise and experience to discharge their functions rather than those whose main qualification is allegiance to this or that party.
Everyone pays lip service to the need for a new political culture but they must be prepared to go beyond the words. Guyana needs all its children to play a part in its development and only a new culture which respects merit, rewards professionalism and discourages narrow partisan interest would allow this to happen.
It is a pity that the government did not think it worth the expenditure to mount a public education campaign on the various changes that were being made to the constitution. It is not too late for such a programme to be mounted as it would help the populace to understand the changes recommended, for instance in the electoral system to be used for local government elections. Knowledge of the recommended changes would help the public understand the difficulties the parties are having in finding common ground on a system to be used at the next set of elections this year.
The changes the Constitution Reform Commission recommended are intended to foster a new political culture which puts a premium on inclusivity to which both the government and opposition say they are committed.
It would be to the credit of the government if it arranges for these changes to be aired on the not inconsiderable, time and space it has at its disposal in the state media - print, television and radio - to raise the public awareness of them. It is just as important if not more so than their being made aware of the promises the government has kept!