By Rawle Lucas
Every country in the world has municipalities except one, and that is Nauru. This is an island in the Pacific consisting of an area of 8.1 sq. miles or 21 sq.km2 and a population of less than 14,000 people. But small size in geography and population is no discouragement to the existence and survival of municipalities. Municipalities of small size might be a curiosity rather than an oddity found in other places. Various online sources discuss municipalities with peculiar situations. Frequently identified was Hum in Croatia reportedly as being about five square miles and having between 23 to 30 residents. Then, there are Pedesina, Morterone and Moncenisio in Italy. They vary in size from 1.7 to 5.3 mi2 and with populations ranging from 30 to 44 persons. Most peculiar of all are the tiny municipalities in the USA that do what it takes to keep their status alive. Gore in Maine and Monowi in Nebraska have one resident each, yet they insist on remaining municipalities and are recognized as such. Then, there are Ruso in North Dakota, Lost Springs in Wyoming and Tavistock in New Jersey which, despite their small populations and size of less than one square mi2, refuse to give up their municipal status.
One should ask why these tiny communities are so determined to hold on to that status. The answer lies not only in their sense of pride but also in a genuine commitment to the virtues of local democracy based on past experience. They believe that local communities must administer their own affairs with the understanding that local government is the foundation of practical democracy. The communities, whether big or small, that hold on to municipal governance believe in administrative efficiency and recognize that it is the most effective way to respond to the needs of citizens. They serve also as accessible entry points for persons who want to become involved in civic engagement.
These virtues of local government and democracy should be no different in Guyana. Indeed, the constitution of Guyana makes it clear in paragraph 71 that “Local government is a vital aspect of democracy and shall be organized so as to involve as many people as possible in the task of managing and developing the communities in which they live”. The constitution did not stop there. It also indicated the role that these local democratic institutions should play in the affairs of the country. In the first sub-paragraph of paragraph 74, the constitution says, “It shall be the primary duty of local democratic organs to ensure in accordance with law the efficient management and development of their areas and to provide leadership by example”. The constitutional responsibilities of local democratic organs were further elaborated as expressed in sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 74. Therein, the constitution says, “It shall be the duty of local democratic organs to maintain and protect public property, improve working and living conditions, promote the social and cultural life of the people, raise the level of civic consciousness, preserve law and order, consolidate the rule of law and safeguard the rights of citizens”. The use of the word shall in these key paragraphs indicates that these are not suggestions to municipalities. These constitutional mandates impose an obligation on local authorities to do the things quoted herein. The constitution therefore expects the central government to cooperate with the local authorities and not push them aside as the local organs attempt to carry out their legitimate duties as set out in the constitution.
The government is violating the constitution by refusing to allow the local government system to work. It refuses to engage locally elected representatives and seeks to bully its way in communities in a manner that is a clear violation of the constitution. A most recent example of that is its insistence on pursuing its idea of model villages without that or its manner of implementation being the decision of local communities. That behaviour violates the constitution. Local government systems have proven to be one of the most effective tools with which to hold public officials accountable. Given what has happened over the years and most recently in the MV Barima tragedy, the PPP government fears accountability and the proper application of the rule of law. Knowing that local government can force accountability, it is afraid to let the system work even if such negligence violates the constitution.
The fact that the government is acting contrary to the constitution implies that it is changing the constitution without a referendum. By doing so, it is not building the society but destroying it. This destructive behaviour of the PPP government should not be allowed to continue. Municipalities must therefore act in accordance with their constitutional mandate.
