By Roysdale Forde S.C- The recent declarations by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) administration outlining a purported “revival” strategy for Georgetown evoke profound apprehensions, not merely regarding the plan’s substantive merits, but more critically, the constitutionally impermissible methodology employed in its advancement.
Whereas the citizenry of Guyana unequivocally aspires to restore our capital as the preeminent gem of the Caribbean, any redevelopment endeavour that circumvents the integral and substantive participation of the duly elected Mayor and City Council (M&CC) constitutes a fundamental derogation from democratic imperatives.
Such exclusionary tactics do not merely imperil the initiative’s viability; they constitute a direct assault upon the cardinal constitutional tenets of separation of powers and decentralised governance, as enshrined in the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana. The local government framework, as affirmed in Article 75 of the Constitution, is no mere appendage to the body politic: “Local Democratic Organs shall be autonomous.”
This provision mandates that organs of local authority, including the M&CC, exercise self-governance free from undue central interference, ensuring that representatives proximate to the populace are vested with the authority to administer local affairs, furnish essential services, and shape and influence the developmental trajectory of their jurisdictions.
Pursuant to Article 77, Parliament is obligated to “provide for the establishment of a Local Government Commission,” yet this body is conceived as a facilitative mechanism, not a supplanting authority that undermines local autonomy. Any central governmental incursion into Georgetown’s revitalisation that marginalises its elected council is not only untenable and deleterious to residents’ interests but also constitutionally untenable and profoundly antithetical to democratic principles.
Again, the PPP/C administration persists in propagating a narrative of “mismanagement” at City Hall as a justification for arrogating core municipal competencies and duties. However, candour demands acknowledgment before Georgetown’s populace: the bulk of this ostensibly chronic inefficiency is a contrived plan, precipitated by protracted underfunding, statutory impediments, and partisan meddling orchestrated by the very executive now posturing as the city’s salvific arbiter.
The M&CC has been systematically deprived of fiscal resources and prevented from instituting innovative, enduring revenue-generation measures. Initiatives to contemporise and augment revenue accrual processes have been systematically thwarted or disregarded. Worse, however, is the executive’s dominion over pivotal municipal personnel – encompassing those in essential operational capacities- exerted through the Local Government Commission.
As delineated in Section 118 of the Municipal and District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01 (as amended), the Commission wields authority over “the appointment, transfer, discipline, and dismissal of officers” within local democratic organs, ostensibly to ensure uniformity and probity. Yet, in praxis, this has devolved into a mechanism for emasculating the elected Council’s dominion over its cadre, rendering it impotent to redress negative situations it is precluded from ameliorating.
This constrictive central hegemony has positioned the Council as a scapegoat for dysfunctions engendered by systemic sabotage. To now posit that the central government shall arrogate select statutory and municipal prerogatives under the veneer of urban regeneration constitutes an unconscionable overreach. It flagrantly contravenes the devolutionary ethos of Article 76 of the Constitution, which stipulates that “Parliament shall establish one or more Local Government Commissions to exercise disciplinary control over local government authorities and make appointments on their behalf,” while preserving the operational sovereignty of such authorities.
Section 97 of Chapter 28:01 further vests in the Council “the general management and regulation of the streets, bridges, drains, markets, and public buildings within the municipality,” underscoring that these functions are not delegable to central fiat without legislative warrant.
This audacious centralisation puts at risk not only Georgetown’s local democracy but establishes a baleful precedent eroding every local authority nationwide. A veritable renaissance of our capital cannot, and shall not, be imposed upon the city; it must be collaboratively forged with the city.
The Mayor and City Council, as the legitimately elected stewards of Georgetown’s denizens, must be inextricably engaged in every phase – from ideation to implementation- of initiatives impinging upon the municipality. This imperative transcends mere administrative prudence; it is constitutionally imperative, as reinforced by Article 78A, which institutionalises the Local Government Commission to “monitor the operations” of local organs without supplanting their autonomy. Democratic accountability, the sine qua non of governance, inexorably demands such inclusivity.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the PPP/C regime to desist from its autocratic, hierarchical posture and adopt serious and authentic deliberation, participatory engagement, and fealty to juridical supremacy. Indeed, if the executive profess genuine fidelity to Georgetown’s efflorescence, it must evince commensurate dedication to strengthening the institutions that daily minister to its citizens; rather than subverting them.
The restoration of Georgetown commences not with infrastructural accretions or thoroughfares, but with the restitution of veneration for our democratic edifice. Anything less would betray the sacrosanct covenant of the Constitution and the solemn oath we all bear to serve Guyana’s sovereign people.
