So-called civic groups’ posture on Govt (Pt 1)

Dear Editor,
I read with interest the long list of civic groups’ criticisms of the Government. I have been following the debates or I should say the concerns raised by the referenced NGOs, commentators alike, and the responses emanating from other sections of civil society; and from Government officials questioning the legitimacy and agenda of these organisations.
However, while the legitimacy; functions and mandates of most if not all of the referenced NGOs, are not to be discounted, I will not get involved in that aspect of the debate on this subject. Rather, I am treating each of those organisations as a group of individuals with a common modus operandi, who sought to utilise their respective organisations to advocate their collective, individualistic, and singularism agenda, arguably under the pretext of legitimate concerns on the Government’s style of conducting the nation’s business.
Editor, I shall now attempt to highlight the inherent flaws grounded in the groups’ subjective assertions largely on account of their seemingly incapability to critically, empirically, objectively and rigorously substantiate their unfounded assertions.
According to the article, the bodies reportedly said that “there is no longer any official institution or agency which anyone – including those sympathetic to the Administration – can turn for an objective assessment of major issues affecting the future of Guyana”. To support this view, the NGOs claimed that the Parliamentary Sectoral Committees don’t meet; regional governments and Neighbourhood Democratic Councils (NDCs) have never been allowed to function independently. This statement suggests that the respective NGOs do not fully understand the functions of these committees, and where they need to turn to for an objective assessment of issues.
There are four sectoral committees of the National Assembly, namely: The Natural Resources Committee, the Economic Services Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee; and the Social Services Committee. These committees have the “responsibility for the scrutiny of all areas of Government policy and administration. In the exercise of their responsibility, they have the power to examine all policies and administration for each sector to determine whether the execution of Government policy is in consonance with the principle of good governance and in the best interest of the nation.” Further to note, “these committees are regarded as an extension of the National Assembly, limited by the extent of the authority given to them, but governed in the proceedings by the same rules as those which prevail in the National Assembly” (cited from Parliament of Guyana website).
My layman interpretation of this is that if one wishes to have an objective assessment of issues and Government policies, then one has to do so themselves. In this case, it is the NGOs that ought to have the technical capability to conduct their own, independent and objective assessment of issues and public policy. Where those NGOs lack such expertise, they can outsource this from independent professionals on the various subject matters. In the developed world, countries such as the United States have perhaps hundreds of think tanks, academic institutions and universities that provide objective assessments and analyses on public policies for the publics consumption.
In Guyana, there is no dedicated institution or a credible think tank per se, of any sort – even the University of Guyana does not conduct any kind of assessments on a regular basis of public policy and national cross cutting issues. We do have, however, many letter writers, columnists, analysts, armchair and fly by night experts and organisations that oftentimes pass off many mediocre opinionated pieces as analyses.
Notwithstanding, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) conducts an annual assessment and analyses through a consultative process on the economic policies of member states. This report known as the IMF Article IV report can be accessed on the institution’s website. This is an example of a credible source from an international institution that carries out assessments on public policy, that these NGOs can turn to for guidance. In fact, in the same article the NGOs reportedly criticised the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Act. However, the concerned NGOs are probably unaware of the IMF’s recommendations on Guyana’s NRF framework which the amended Act is woefully in compliance in terms of the Fund’s governance structure. The referenced group also went on to register their concern of the “stripping of the Public Accountability and Oversight Committee from the NRF Act. I should point out though that this is not true; as this committee is part of the amended Act albeit in a recalibrated structure and which remained in compliance with international best practice (Santiago Principles).
Another critical contention put forward by the so-called civil society grouping, was one that focused heavily on the Guyana Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (GYEITI) wherein the authors sought to attack the appointment of the newly appointed Head of the GYEITI. The group hastened to attack the gentleman by attempting to discredit his credentials and vexatiously implied that the gentleman does not have the requisite qualifications – but failing to acknowledge altogether that this gentleman is a prominent and prolific Guyanese academician who held positions such as the Pro-Chancellor of the University of Guyana, and has worked in universities abroad in similar capacities; the gentleman also holds a PhD, two Master’s degrees and a Bachelor’s degree, and he has authored several publications – thus making him an extremely well qualified candidate without question, for the job at hand.
Ironically and perhaps hypocritically, these very civil groups responded recently to their critics from persons in civil society and Government officials by complaining that the Government and others attacked the messenger rather than the message. Yet, this very group in their original statement did not think twice to ridicule an astute and well-respected Guyanese academician, without providing any credible, cogent and compelling justifications for their opinionated arguments.
The manner in which the referenced civil groups wrote about this individual’s appointment to the GYEITI gives one the impression that it is a grave crime being committed by the Government and that transparency and accountability as far as the work of the GYEITI is concerned, will die a natural death. Again, this picture that this particular grouping is trying to paint is far from the reality and is fraught with a noxious propagandistic narrative.
To that end, the above is suggestive of this particular grouping’s ignorance of the overarching framework, mandate, functions and structure of the GYEITI because if they did, they would understand that regardless of who is appointed as the National Coordinator of the organisation, they cannot deviate from the guiding principles of the organisation.

Sincerely,
JC Bhagwandin