The conduct of the affairs of the Local Government Commission is symptomatic of the Government’s approach to the Rule of Law and Good Governance and exemplifies the emergence of a fascist state, something of which the PPP previously accused the PNC Government.
Our structures, and culture, of governance are both conducive to such an emergence, in our circumstance of a plural society, majoritarian rule, and the dominance of two ethnically based parties.
Our constitutional commissions and even other deliberative organs of the state are constituted in such a manner, and vested with such procedural autonomy that enables the ruling party to determine how, and what, decisions are made without reference or deference to the Rule of Law or the principles of Good Governance.
The case of the Local Government Commission.
The composition of the Commission clearly allows the Government to exercise ultimate control. The President has three nominees. The National Assembly, which is controlled by the Government has one nominee. The Minister responsible for Local Government has one nominee. That accounts for five nominees at the Government’s behest. The remaining three members are nominees of the Leader of the Opposition.
Clearly, the Government has the scope to determine what, and how, decisions are made. This is beyond just deduction. The empirical evidence of the voting pattern in the decision making process clear shows that the votes are cast in bloc and the Government’s five always prevail, as was the case of the imposition of Gaspar, the PPP`s lead activist in Linden, as the Town Clerk of the Mayor and Town Council of Linden.
Procedurally, the only procedure that`s eventually observed is the casting of votes. The Good Government requirement: transparency, is observed in the breach. The vote trumps decision making based on known criteria, such as the required qualifications and experience, in the instance of employment.
Incidentally, a similar situation exists at GECOM and has resulted in the top offices, to wit the offices of the Chief Elections Officer and the Deputy Chief Elections Officer, being occupied by persons who did not meet the stipulated criteria of GECOM, although there were other applicants who met the criteria.
The aforementioned instance is but a tip of the iceberg with regard to the manner in which this Government has undermined the Rule of Law and Good Governance in its pursuit of dominance and control over national affairs that even impinge on the lives of individuals to the extent that one can refer to the situation as an emerging fascist state.
Ironically, the Government spouts the Rule of Law, and Good Governance as its guiding principles, but observes them in the breach. The practice is quite the opposite.
Most alarming, and of concern is the recent boldness of some publicists, such as Kissoon and Bhagwanding, who seek to rationalize the Government’s practice, in an effort to establish that there is an acceptable praxis from the rule of law and good governance perspectives. For example, Bhagwanding argues that the manner in which the state media is managed, to wit its exclusion of other voices is acceptable, since the Government needs its own outlet, and the others have access to other media. While, Kissoon argues that there is nothing wrong with the Government using its majority in Parliament to enact electoral laws which are not consensually arrived at with the other parties, who have an equal interest in the electoral process
