Accountability

Weekly viewpoint by Robert Persaud, MBA

Accountability is a buzz word in the circles of government, civil society and international institutions. This concept is a requirement, in fact, a necessary condition of all local and international agreements. It is a concept that is gaining greater acceptance in our society. Today, all aspects of government’s financial and public policy institutions have built-in accountability mechanisms.

The emerging culture of accountability in society was restored in 1992 when the PPP/C administration re-introduced the concept of a lean and clean government with emphasis on public accountability. Now, we see businesses, trades union bodies, non-governmental organizations and constitutional bodies have all re-emphasized the notion of accountability in their operations. However, there are calls, some founded and others not so, for greater accountability.

With an open media in Guyana, there is little which does not come to the public attention. Given the ultra-free media and unprecedented state of freedom of expression, the public has the power to hold public officers more accountable. They can demand of them performance and outcomes in keeping with their office and the expectations of the people whom they are intended to serve.

Recent developments have brought the issue of accountability to the front-burner once again in the formal public discourses and even the talk on the streets. One of these is the preparation for the upcoming elections and who should be held accountable for any possible delays.

The public is deeply concerned about the attempts by some elements within and outside of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) operations to push the holding of Regional and General Elections outside of the constitutionally due date. Under the laws of Guyana, GECOM is mandated to conduct free and fair elections on time (and in this case on or before August 4, 2006).      

Like any other constitutional and independent body, this entity is accountable to the people of Guyana and has to work in accordance with the laws of this country. This means that the dereliction of duty by those functionaries can lead to a serious beach of their responsibilities as set out by the Elections Act.

The questions the public are asking: who are these elements in GECOM operations who seem bent on dragging elections outside of the August 4, 2006 date?  Why are they seeking to engineer a delay which could be considered a failure by them to uphold their constitutional duty?

The fact that elections could be held on time is not in dispute. This has been established by the international Joint International Technical Assessment and even other technical personnel who have looked at GECOM secretariat’s revised timetable. Consequently, considerations of motives and even breaches of responsibility by certain personnel are not unreasonable.

A point to note is that this is a rare case where the governing party is demanding that elections are held on time and the opposition wants it to be delayed. In other places, some incumbents dodge or even push for a delay in the holding of elections. It would be recalled that since a year ago the ruling party declared that it was ready to receive a new mandate from the people of Guyana, even before the expiration of its term in office. We would recall that the main opposition when in government extended its life in Government on two occasions by two years on each occasion. This government has done the opposite. Following the 1997 elections, the PPP/C agreed to a three-year term, two years were given up in the interests of preserving democracy.

If elections are held outside of August 4, the government, based on our

law remains in office. Talk about an interim government is sheer rubbish and has no basis in law or logics. This is just part of the opposition’s campaign to create instability as it has been doing in threatening the peace of Guyana if it does not get its way in delaying the elections. (Next week I will examine some of the possible motives for this demand to delay the polls.)

But the debate on accountability is not only directed at GECOM on the elections date. Other serious matters such as the `missing’ 33 Ak-47s and other weapons from the Guyana Defence Force headquarters’ bond, the  public’s discontent with the police force’s response to the current crime situation, and the heightened efforts by some opposition elements to harm the peace in Guyana.

The mechanisms to ensure accountability within and outside of Guyana by the respective functionaries, including certain opposition political leaders, ought not to be ignored. There are many local and even international precedents. Everyone knows that accountability remains a critical pillar of good governance and effective leadership.