Thursday
May 15, 2003
GOVERNMENT OF GUYANA/UNITED NATIONS
WORKSHOP ON BUILDING SOCIAL COHESION/CONFLICT RESOLUTION
At Ocean View International Hotel- (Presentation
by the Head of the Presidential Secretariat Dr. Roger Luncheon)
Salutations:
In late last year, and in response to Government’s
requests to international and bilateral sources for assistance,
the UN fielded a mission to Guyana that was, at that time,
in the throes of escalating crime and gross citizens’
insecurity.
Later, in February 2003, President Jagdeo extended an invitation
to the newly elected Leader of the PNC/R, Mr. Robert Corbin
to meet anytime, any place so as to, among other things, discuss
the restoration of political normalcy.
-
The UN mission submitted its report and recommendations.
-
The PNC/R Leader, Mr. Robert Corbin
accepted President Jagdeo’s invitation and arising
from that decision, the recently released Communiqué
was born.
We are gathered here today, in the shadow of those two
(2) events. I suspect, events hardly represent what actually
took place, but the historians would pronounce on that.
In our midst are the stakeholders, all imbued with a resolve
to intervene in Guyana’s best interest and to work
to bring an end to the extremes in our current situation.
We are fortunate to have available information about the
experiences of States with similar such problems and more
importantly, the lessons learnt. Even more importantly,
we have the Communiqué and the real expectations
that it has created.
Our task and surely not ours alone, but our task nonetheless
is to draw on those antecedents and address the realities
of Guyana.
Governments are understandably urged to embrace and practise
good governance.
Today, the demands of good governance are seen more as
in inter-play of responsibilities extending way beyond
government’s exclusive obligation.
All are involved is the paradigm that has evolved and
will likely endure. And this activity today expects to
have contributions from all and thus fulfil the thrust
of that paradigm.
Where good governance is concerned, I would be the first
to admit that good governance is fundamental to development.
The more that state parties subscribe to and accede to
its tenets, the more good Governance has become entrenched
in the domestic and international discourse on Development.
However, I want to go further and insist that it is a
recipe for bringing about Normal Politics.
What is becoming most evident is the ALL ARE INVOLVED
aspect of the Governance Paradigm.
My thesis is that Good Governance is fundamental to Development.
Further that Development demands the contribution/participation
of all
Good Governance must be embraced and practised by all
Essentially today, we are here as stakeholders, to explore
the possibilities held out by the agreements in the Communiqué,
to constructively harness social energy for nation building,
all embracing good governance as the operating system
for all our applications dealing with Normal Politics
and Nation Building. We are here to merge the efforts
in realising those possibilities with practical interventions
that are thrown up at this, what is essentially, a brainstorming
activity.
Today, I want to concentrate on the roles and contributions
of NON STATE
Actors:
Everyone accepts that Good governance promotes
social stability by reducing tensions in societies. Logically
then, interventions to reduce social tensions and support
social stability must reflect good governance.
Looking internally the resources available to States extend
beyond its employees and contract workers. Full resource mobilisation
cannot exclude civil society participation and actually in
Guyana’s reality is a resource that must be aggressively
cultivated.
While the Communiqué is explicitly silent on that issue,
within it there abound opportunities for proactive engagements.
It would be impossible for anyone to ignore the current realities
affecting Civil Society participation in our national culture.
Minimal Civil Society participation in our institutions and
our structures is the norm.
Government must reach out and take the initiative to heighten
its engagement with Civil Society at both the National and
Regional levels.
To fully engage, we all have to re-examine and resolve the
issue of legitimacy especially when foreign interests promote
ADVOCACY by Civil Society actors.
To be meaningfully consulted demands legitimacy, which is
fundamental, and a derivative of the practice of good governance.
Immediately, I want us to recognise the implications of my
argument and more so the onus that it places on us all.
I am insisting that as we accept the role of non-state actors
we must also recognise their responsibilities and obligations.
The flip side of the increased interest in nonstate players
and investments in their involvement in Development must be
stressed, they too must embrace and practise good governance
and demonstrate as much compliance as State parties.
We will keep returning to that heightened interest shown in
the role of nonstate actors and the emphasis placed on their
participation/contribution to development.
For the benefit of the international community, I want to
again recognise the value of knowledge of best practices and
exposure to lessons learnt.
But it is not only the poor and disadvantaged in India who
cannot eat paper.
The realities of the current practice of International Relations
are not lost to us as we grapple with ways and means of supporting
and sustaining our initiatives. Today, I don’t intend
to beleaguer the international community with developing countries’
concerns about the DO AS I SAY AND NOT AS I DO PROBLEMATIQUE.
Today, I would merely counter the reverence for Best Practices
and Lessons Learnt with its limitations and insist that while
preaching it is understandable, action is more often what
is required
Tangible results must be sought in our engagement. The issues
that we have to address are simply too complex for too much
a reliance on advice.
I want to reflect now on the Social Environment and specifically
those aspects dealing with Political Stability. There is much
in the agreements in the Communiqué that exposes the
concerns that both leaders have about the primacy of Political
Stability, i.e. Normal Politics.
Indeed, a convincing argument can be made that the Communiqué
itself is testimony to the convictions that both leaders have
about establishing or should I say re-establishing the primacy
of Normal Politics.
The maturity that the leaders exhibited at this particular
period in their respective tenure in office must be acknowledged
and admired.
The Communiqué is a work of commitment, it bespeaks
of mature judgement.
But more can and must be done than recognising and admiring
maturity of the leaders
This workshop must begin the examination of PROCESS
How can this process be advanced?
How can we support the achievement of the mutual and explicit
undertakings of the Communiqué? And as we achieve how
can we parlay those achievements into added value so that
the process can become entrenched and solidifies?
What can we discuss and propose today at this forum, and in
the days and weeks to come, at other occasions to restore,
to contribute to Social Stability?
I anticipate today that coming from this gathering would be
wide ranging suggestions, proposals on that subject.
At this particular juncture, it is the Confidence building
gestures, and as an English Duck. I use that term guardedly
it is the gestures that matters.
Sceptics abound. Worse yet, opposition exists to both the
spirit and the letter of the Communiqué.
Attention must now be focused on promoting the implementation
of its agreed upon programmes, thereby effecting greater confidence
in the political process and ultimately allow the unstated
but obvious benefits of implementing agreements in the Communiqué
to materialise.
Our first talk then is to ensure implementation. Monitoring
has clearly been recognised as the fundamental tool and the
activity must, in the current climate, have a reporting component.
After all, this matter is surely bigger than politics.
Next, promoting the benefits of implementation must be highlighted.
This calls for the most permissive of environments, re-enforcing
the early achievements of constructive re-engagement.
Comprehensively, I can see a role for all here, The motivation
more than likely will differ, the approaches should differ
but we must all resolve not to waste this opportunity, not
to squander this chance to work together to put our house
in ORDER.
TOP
|
