Motion to revise National Development Strategy defeated
-govt disagrees with model proposed
By Andre Haynes
Stabroek News
December 16, 2006
The government used its parliamentary majority on Thursday to block an opposition motion for a people- driven initiative to update the National Development Strategy (NDS).
The two sides could not agree on the approach to revise the decade-old strategy, a week after the postponement of the debate offered a hope of consensus. However, following almost four hours of arguments, the motion was defeated by a vote of 33 to 21. Opposition members des-cribed the outcome as a "sad event" and "an act of bad faith," while their counterparts in the government seats boasted of their track record as they defended their right to take the lead in the revision of the strategy.
The debate was a formality since the government's spokesmen made it clear from the start that they were unwilling to support a process in which they would have limited input but full accountability. Instead, they favoured a government-led process that would later be subject to input from civil society and the oversight of the sectoral committee on economic services. A year before, an almost identical opposition motion received the unanimous support of both sides of the house - a fact that was often emphasised throughout the course of the debate.
The NDS was developed following the 1992 PPP/Civic win. After much criticism over the involvement of the Carter Center in the process it was placed in the hands of civil society in an exercise co-chaired by Dr Kenneth King and Mavis Benn. It has not been adopted as the official national development strategy although the government has said it is implementing parts of it.
Thursday's motion, in the name of PNCR MP Winston Murray, called for the adoption of the strategy document as the overarching approach for pursuing the economic and social transformation of the country. It would have resulted in the establishment of a special select committee that would begin consultations immediately with the private sector, wider civil society and other stakeholders to establish a representative group to revise the strategy. The group would have been required to periodically report to the select committee to make recommendations to parliament for the adoption of the strategy.
Additionally, subsequent to the adoption of the strategy the sectoral committee on economic services would have been authorised to monitor implementation by the executive.
Murray, in his address to the house, challenged the government to adopt a bottom-up approach for the development of the strategy in order to ensure that stakeholders feel truly involved. He said such a course would be in the spirit of President Bharrat Jagdeo's public commitments to inclusiveness during the next five years. President Jagdeo has said that the administration's policy agenda would be rooted in the primacy of the people. Murray said the "primacy of the people and the views of the people" were at the heart of the motion. "We are seeking to give life to the President's grand expressions," he said, "and it seems we are going to be denied that possibility."
Murray was alive to the concerns of the government, but lamented that its proposed alternative is to simply rewrite the strategy and then ask the people for their comments. He described this course as a top-down approach and he noted that people often feel restrained in giving their frank opinion once the government has laid down its views on a subject. Besides, he noted that the opposition's proposal envisages that a parliamentary select committee would refine the updated strategy, and the government could use its majority at that stage to expunge the parts it finds unacceptable. Added to that, he pointed out that the strategy would also be brought before the entire assembly, where the government would also have an opportunity to use its absolute majority to leave out the parts it finds unacceptable. "It is the soundest way to proceed if we are truly committed to the involvement of the people," he urged. "We get to know what people truly think upfront, rather than their reactions; we should invite this approach."
Murray also said that a bottom-up approach would result in what could be truly called "home grown initiatives" that could be presented to international financial institutions as the basis for policy making. China and South Korea are two countries that have gone this route. He called on the government to be bolder, to be less afraid of letting go of power and authority, and to be less distrustful of the people.
PNCR MP James McAllister, who had moved the motion a year before, said the unanimity on the issue had sent a message to the people that there were things that were national to all Guyanese. He lamented that nothing was done after the motion was passed, but said that a message of cooperation and collaboration needed to be delivered once more.
Accountability
Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh said the government would have little, if any difficulties accepting the motion save for the model proposed for revising the strategy. He explained that government did recognise that the strategy was drafted in a world that was considerably different and as a result updating it is necessary. However, he said if the government is to be held accountable for the policies and their implementation it must, of necessity, be given the responsibility to do it. "Removing from the government the primary responsibility to develop the NDS for the country, is essentially saying to the government that we no longer hold you accountable for the strategy and implementation," he explained. He said if the government is to be held accountable by the legislature it must be given the latitude to lead the process that would inform the policies.
At the same time, Singh emphasised that the government is not saying no to consultation and participation, since its work on the strategy would form the basis for an engagement with stakeholders. In this vein, he said the government's track record speaks for itself. Added to that, he noted that the government would not have a problem with the oversight of the National Assembly and specifically the monitoring by the economic services committee that was proposed.
Singh added that the government is indeed "being bold" as Murray urged, by saying it would lead the process. He did acknowledge the attempt during the last parliament to take the motion to the committee, but he said that with the passage of time it might not be inappropriate to revisit the issue and to offer new perspectives.
Singh was supported by Ministers Robert Persaud and Leslie Ramsammy, who also noted that since the conception of the strategy, sectoral policies have been developed and implemented. Persaud said that a considerable amount of the strategies developed for the agriculture sector had been implemented and he noted that this was pursued through bottom-up approaches. He added that all Guyanese would be given an opportunity to play a role and own the updated strategy once the government has embarked on the programme. Meanwhile, Ramsammy added that the government has practised implementation of policies in the strategy, except for those that it has no intention of pursuing, like the privatisation of Guysuco or cost recovery for health services.
Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, however, did not mince words. He said both sides agreed on everything but the manner in which the strategy would be revised. He said the government has no quarrel with a bottom-up approach and keeping the people in the centre of the rewrite, but favours having a strategy that it can truly be accountable for. "For this we cannot be held accountable because it is only a guide," he said, while holding up a copy of the strategy. "Some aspects of this document we do not agree with," he added. He explained that these were the dangers of a civil-society document; that is, that the government could not be held accountable for it and that there would be elements it would not be comfortable with.
AFC MP Raphael Trotman, who supported the motion, described Thursday's sitting as surrealistic, having debated and passed the motion almost a year to the day before. He noted that the same arguments about the merits and demerits were made but at the end there had been an overwhelming approval. As a result, he said the government's new posture was disappointing and he described it as an act of insincerity. He said the fact that it occurs after the general elections raises questions about the government's genuineness when it gave its commitment last year. "I hope this does not signal the manner in which we conduct our business," Trotman said, while adding that those who voted in favour of the motion previously would dishonour themselves by voting against it. "…All we have is rhetoric," he said, "we have lost golden time and we have lost a golden opportunity."
GAP-ROAR MP Everall Franklin also supported the motion. He agreed that the strategy needs to be updated but described the government's approach as incestuous. He said the government would be doing the country a disservice if it goes down that road.
The opposition MPs noted throughout the debate that the drafters of the NDS had intended that its revision be undertaken by a civic body. The strategy called for the establishment of a National Development Commission, comprising a small number of commissioners, wholly drawn from civil society, who would be supported by a number of consultants and a secretariat. The main tasks of the commission would have been to continuously update the NDS and to monitor its implementation. It proposed ensuring a timely exchange of information between the Commission and the Government, and to realise this, legal links between the Commission and Government's oversight committee. The NDS also called for the Commission to be required to report annually to parliament on the status of the implementation.