Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
Whether or not Mr. Joel Bhagwandin was commissioned by the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) to write his critical review of IDPADA-G’s Strategic Plan (‘The United Nations International Decade for People of African Descent (2015-2024), the Guyana situation – a critical review and recommendations on the way forward’), his approach and recommendations certainly fit well with that party’s governance ideology and objectives, particularly as they relate to African Guyanese. It is now clear that the PPP wishes to control the entire political sphere in Guyana – particularly that occupied by Africans. Nevertheless, Bhagwandin recommends that the regime which has missed no opportunity to use all the resources at its disposal to prosecute its drive for political/ethnic dominance be given the opportunity to do so!
The international decade is intended to strengthen national and international cooperation and ensure that Africans are given their political, economic, and social rights, promote greater knowledge and respect for their diverse heritage, and the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the International Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. States are expected to effectively implement national and international legal frameworks, policies, and programmes to combat racism, xenophobia, and related intolerance faced by people of African descent, especially women, girls, and young males.
Using these broad UN guidelines, the objectives of IDPADA-G had to be properly contextualized to the specific conditions of Guyana, and important here is how the major stakeholders, importantly the African people and the government of the day perceive the situation. Having considered the matter, former president David Granger agreed that IDPADA-G, which consists of the vast majority of some 65 African organisations, would establish a non-governmental organization that his government would fund to drive the activities of the Decade. These included promoting economic advancement; empowerment; access to investment capital, etc.; strengthening African-Guyanese businesses; reducing poverty and ascertaining a sustainable socio-economic future for African-Guyanese collectives; reducing systemic and structural inequalities and restoring conditions of equity and equality in relations between African-Guyanese and other ethnic groups.
According to Bhagwandin, ‘the program activities and objectives of the International Decade for People of African Descent ought to have been led by the State [but] instead, a non-profit company was incorporated, and the work of the organization was carried out with almost no substantive involvement on the part of the state save and except for the annual subvention from the national budget.’ He claimed that this ‘governance structure … is arguably a divergence from the intended model contemplated by the United Nations. Consequently, the IPADA-G’s mission was reduced to a mere advocacy body, which is a stark departure from the program activities and objectives for the International Decade for People of African Descent.’
Mr. Bhagwandin also stated that ‘the problem IPADA-G now has with the Government in relation to Government subventions, is the result of its being ill-advised or not advised at all by the previous Government.’ Recipients of subventions from the National Budget have to, but IPADA-G did not conform with the Fiscal Management and Accountability Act 2003. He then recommended that the present PPP government take ‘immediate steps to conform to the objectives of the United Nations by leading the implementation through an independent Commission with features similar to other existing independent constitutional Commissions.’
Firstly, is Mr. Bhagwandin correct when he claimed that the UN program is being performed with ‘almost no substantive involvement on the part of the State’, or is he simply exhibiting the usual PPP’s state-centric view that government should have direct control over day-to-day activities with which it is associated. How can a government that is in close contact with stakeholders, approved its program, and organizational arrangement, and funds its activities, not have ‘substantive involvement’ if needs be? When real democrats say the government must lead or implement, they do not necessarily mean that they must dictate and micromanage; they mean that it is the government’s responsibility to see that the mandate is fulfilled in a timely manner. How this is done depends upon how the stakeholders assess the issue and the context.
Secondly, his view that IDPADA-G is ‘reduced to a mere advocacy body’ again suggests Bhagwandin’s state centricity and a most parochial view of the power of socio/political advocacy. Since about the end of the 19th century, this type of organization has been playing a critical role in driving change even as it relates to the state itself. Take as examples the Fabian Society and Beatrice and Sydney Webb.
Thirdly, like dozens of organizations including the Theatre Guild, the Scouts Association, the National Toshaos Council, and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that receive government subventions under specific conditions, IDPADA-G, can be found in the National Budget under Details of Subsidies and Contributions to Local Organisations. Are all these bodies running afoul of the financial law?
Finally, in Guyana’s context, the objectives and implementation arrangements of IDPADA-G are not contrary to the UN objectives as Bhagwandin argued they might be. Indeed, even if they were, it was for the new PPP government to engage IDPADA-G and not peevishly unilaterally remove its subsidy.
However, it appears to me that his demand for state control of the process has been induced by an even greater problem. The kind of engagement just suggested is impossible, for while IDPADA-G’s objectives and processes are very much in keeping with the UN directives and usual administration in Guyana, the entire international and national Decade’s project that focuses upon government accountability for African development and equality, constitutes a substantial obstacle to the PPP objective of establishing political/ethnic dominance in Guyana.
Mr. Bhagwandin recommended that the work be done by a majoritarian parliamentary commission (most of which are useless) because his mission is to enable the PPP to bypass legitimate African representatives and arrangements; take control of the entire process by packing a commission with PPP associates to delay, divert or stymie the objectives of IDPAD. As has become customary, the regime can, and no doubt will appoint whatever commission it wants, but it should not be allowed to obstruct the objectives of IDPAD.
