By Ian Francis
The recent news from the Caribbean Court of Justice and the CARICOM Secretariat indicating that Sir Dennis Byron has been appointed as chief justice of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) came to many regional observers as a great surprise and possible disappointment. It was popularly felt that injection of new and progressive blood was necessary for the CCJ, given the enormous amount of work to be undertaken for the future growth and sustainability of the organisation.
The appointment of Byron is not being opposed in this article, as it is felt and known that he is a very competent jurist who has served the region with great distinction. I want to wish Sir Dennis good luck and longevity as he prepares to assume the position of a regional court with only three members. Given Sir Dennis’s legal and administrative skills and experience, there is very little doubt that he will attempt to make a very valuable contribution to the CCJ, focusing on its future growth, which must include an increased membership.
While the selection and appointment of Sir Dennis as chief justice of the CCJ is not being viewed in a negative light, the need to delve further and gain valuable information about the selection and appointment process method applied by the Council of Ambassadors are reasonable questions to ask with the hope that truthful and credible answers are shared.
If the Council of Ambassadors were to adopt the notion of transparency and good governance, then it is reasonable to assume that the average “Joe Blow” in the region will get a much deeper insight into the decision-making process of the Council of Ambassadors. They are obligated to enlighten the region’s population about their decision making process within the CARICOM organisation. In an era of transparency and accountability, the sharing of this information is necessary if the recognised need to enlighten, increase awareness and understanding about CARICOM and its Council of Ambassadors is to be realised.
Prior to the inter-sessional pow wow in Grenada, it was known throughout the region that the Council of Ambassadors had two very critical appointments to make with respect to a new secretary general for the CARICOM Secretariat and a chief justice for the Caribbean Court of Justice. While it is recognized that the Council or Heads have the authority or mandate for such appointments, their authority should not be blindfolded or impaired by ensuring that proper human resource principles and practices are adopted when making such important appointments.
In July 2010, when former Secretary General Carrington and CCJ Chief Justice de la Bastide indicated that they would demit office, it was felt that the broad regional clamour for transparency and accountability in CARICOM might begin with the newly touted of “Council of Ambassadors”. There was great hope and expectation that the Council of Ambassadors would be more progressive, innovative and strategic in their approach with the decision making process in the Secretariat.
Unfortunately, based on internal information gleaned and received from credible sources within the Secretariat, it would appear that the newly touted “Council of Ambassadors” returned to their “old dog tricks” by applying an old decision making model of appointment by consensus..
With all of the above observations, it would appear that the development and implementation of a human resource strategy for the Secretariat has been ignored. There was no written job description for the chief justice position; no posting for the vacant position; no search, interviewing and recruitment committee established. Had these measures being in place, it would have afforded a broad spectrum of applicants from throughout the Caribbean region seeking the position of chief justice.
While at this stage the selection and appointment of a secretary general is unknown, it is sincerely hoped that the Council of Ambassadors will return to the drawing board by recognising and understanding that the process for selecting and appointing a new Secretary General of CARICOM requires a more visionary approach.
I wish Sir Dennis well in his new challenge. There is no doubt that he is indeed a formidable jurist and will do extremely well at the Caribbean Court of Justice. However, if the visionless Council of Ambassadors had seriously applied a transparent selection process, many more like Sir Dennis could have emerged and been considered for this very important position.
Now that the Council of Ambassadors have returned to their governing sanctuaries following their inter-sessional meeting in Grenada, they must once again be reminded of the wise comments made by Prime Minister Douglas of St Kitts and Nevis. He has requested fellow colleagues to be more reflective and analytical when handling important CARICOM matters.
In my view, Douglas’s comments require great attention and should influence our regional leaders with their governance and decision making style. They really need to measure up or face the emerging forces that are clamoring for change and participation. There are already clear warning signs in St Lucia, Grenada and Antigua that are likely to bring about electoral changes. It is very doubtful as to whether the Council of Ambassadors can influence the outcome of the pending electoral changes.
Let’s watch our Council of Ambassadors and their forthcoming report scheduled to be delivered at the next CARICOM meeting scheduled for the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis in July 2011.The region’s population are getting wary of the Council of Ambassadors’ tomfoolery.
Ian Francis resides in Toronto and writes frequently on Caribbean affairs. He is a former Assistant Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs., Grenada. He can be reached at info@vismincommunications.org
caribbeannewsnow
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Showing posts with label CARICOM Council of Ambassadors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CARICOM Council of Ambassadors. Show all posts
Monday, March 21, 2011
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Caricom's 'buck-passing' culture
ANALYSIS
RICKEY SINGH
THE latest example of amusing buck-passing, or how to avoid taking political responsibility as leaders for advancing the goals of the Caribbean Community, emerged from a meeting in Grenada last Wednesday of five Caricom prime ministers and two foreign ministers.
Comprising a committee mandated to deal with the critical issue of improving governance of the affairs of the 37-year-old community, the participants were mindful to reflect customary caution in decisions taken for expected endorsement next month by the wider body of Heads of Government.
The committee's mandate flowed from last month's 31st Caricom summit in Montego Bay where the Heads of Government of the 15-member community had once again shied away from any consideration to introduce an empowered management structure that could have the effect of diluting, in some aspects, their domestic political authority.
This, even if such a course could result in satisfying, to some extent, their own often claimed commitment to achieving what's good for the regional economic integration movement as a whole, and knowing that it would require a sharing of some defined measures on sovereignty.
It is the reluctance to manage national sovereignty in the interest of the declared concept of 'One Community' that surfaced in Montego Bay last month.
The customary rhetoric about "commitment to Caricom" (read CSME; functional co-operation; integrated foreign and economic policies, etc), gave way to mild initiatives for tinkering with the community's prevailing governance status quo.
Consequently, the decision came from last Wednesday's meeting in Grenada on governance, plus another on a large nine-member "search committee" to help find a new secretary-general for Caricom with the retirement from year end of Edwin Carrington.
Two decisions
Participating in the meeting were the prime ministers of Jamaica (Bruce Golding, current Caricom chairman); Grenada (host Tilman Thomas); St Vincent and the Grenadines (Ralph Gonsalves); St Kitts and Nevis (Denzil Douglas) and Dominica's Roosevelt Skerrit. The two foreign ministers were Barbados' Maxine McLean, and Trinidad and Tobago's Surujrattan Rambachan.
First surprise was the disclosure that a nine-member "search committee", chaired by Foreign Minister McClean, would begin the process of pre-selecting candidates for the appointment of a successor to Carrington.
The committee's terms of reference, still to be formulated, will be determined by the Heads when they meet on the periphery of next month's start of the annual session of the UN General Assembly in New York.
The second surprising decision was even more baffling, in the sense that it offered neither anything new, in terms of a fundamental restructuring of the community Secretariat; nor any creative initiative for improved decision-making and implementation processes to check the snail's pace at which the CSME project continues to proceed.
The surprise came in the form of the announced decision to create a "Council of Community Ambassadors". It would operate on a permanent basis from the respective capitals to help remove barriers, at national levels, that frustrate implementation of regional decisions, and to strengthen co-operation.
If, after all the research materials and range of proposals over the years on alternative systems for improved governance of the community, Caricom leaders are to now offer a Council of Ambassadors as a standing mechanism for improving "governance", then they should not be surprised by an expected wave of cynicism and disenchantment across the region.
The Heads of Government may be scared of the politics of sharing a measure of sovereignty in the functioning of an empowered executive management structure, even though it is intended to function under their direct supervision and final authority.
How could it be explained -- if it is not a case of unintended contempt for the region's people -- the Heads' assumption of public acceptance of the proposed Council of Ambassadors as representing a creative effort for improved governance from the second decade of the 21st century?
Not flattering
For a start, the proposed Council of Ambassadors should not be confused with what obtains at the Organisation of American States (OAS), or in relation to the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group. For a start, such councils function from a common location-- Washington (for the OAS) and Brussels (for the ACP).
For now, we are aware of examples of how senior cabinet ministers, and in a few cases at Heads level, have encountered difficulties in resolving sensitive bilateral matters and also failing to take advantage of the disputes settlement provisions located in the revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.
It would not be flattering for the Heads to hear criticisms of them "joking around" on the governance issue. But it is quite disappointing to note, in 2010, that ours remains a "Community of sovereign states" that has acquired a reputation for making bold, at times quite imaginative decisions, only to falter, too often, when it comes to implementation of unanimously approved decisions.
Examples abound, but a few should suffice, for now, such as failure to give legislative approval of the Charter of Civil Society -- one of the core recommendations of the West Indian Commission that was released as a document of the community since 1997.
(Incidentally, "good governance" is one of the Articles of the Charter that calls for establishment of a code governing the conduct of holders of public office and all those who exercise power that may affect the public interest).
Policies requiring implementation would also include the sharing of external representation; pursuing, with vision and vigour, a common policy on regional air transportation; the dismantling of barriers to free intra-regional movement of Caricom nationals (currently some states are making things worse for nationals).
The question, therefore, remains: Who among the Heads of Government of the estimated dozen countries fully participating in the policies and programmes of Caricom is now ready to call a halt to the community's governance system?
While they try to market the idea of a Council of Community Ambassadors that, in the final analysis, would be accountable to them, why this widening of a bureaucratic management system? Is it really a plausible approach for changing the prevailing buck-passing culture that has been virtually institutionalised by a model of governance our Heads of Government — past and present — seem so loath to change?
August 22, 2010
jamaicaobserver
RICKEY SINGH
THE latest example of amusing buck-passing, or how to avoid taking political responsibility as leaders for advancing the goals of the Caribbean Community, emerged from a meeting in Grenada last Wednesday of five Caricom prime ministers and two foreign ministers.
Comprising a committee mandated to deal with the critical issue of improving governance of the affairs of the 37-year-old community, the participants were mindful to reflect customary caution in decisions taken for expected endorsement next month by the wider body of Heads of Government.
The committee's mandate flowed from last month's 31st Caricom summit in Montego Bay where the Heads of Government of the 15-member community had once again shied away from any consideration to introduce an empowered management structure that could have the effect of diluting, in some aspects, their domestic political authority.
This, even if such a course could result in satisfying, to some extent, their own often claimed commitment to achieving what's good for the regional economic integration movement as a whole, and knowing that it would require a sharing of some defined measures on sovereignty.
It is the reluctance to manage national sovereignty in the interest of the declared concept of 'One Community' that surfaced in Montego Bay last month.
The customary rhetoric about "commitment to Caricom" (read CSME; functional co-operation; integrated foreign and economic policies, etc), gave way to mild initiatives for tinkering with the community's prevailing governance status quo.
Consequently, the decision came from last Wednesday's meeting in Grenada on governance, plus another on a large nine-member "search committee" to help find a new secretary-general for Caricom with the retirement from year end of Edwin Carrington.
Two decisions
Participating in the meeting were the prime ministers of Jamaica (Bruce Golding, current Caricom chairman); Grenada (host Tilman Thomas); St Vincent and the Grenadines (Ralph Gonsalves); St Kitts and Nevis (Denzil Douglas) and Dominica's Roosevelt Skerrit. The two foreign ministers were Barbados' Maxine McLean, and Trinidad and Tobago's Surujrattan Rambachan.
First surprise was the disclosure that a nine-member "search committee", chaired by Foreign Minister McClean, would begin the process of pre-selecting candidates for the appointment of a successor to Carrington.
The committee's terms of reference, still to be formulated, will be determined by the Heads when they meet on the periphery of next month's start of the annual session of the UN General Assembly in New York.
The second surprising decision was even more baffling, in the sense that it offered neither anything new, in terms of a fundamental restructuring of the community Secretariat; nor any creative initiative for improved decision-making and implementation processes to check the snail's pace at which the CSME project continues to proceed.
The surprise came in the form of the announced decision to create a "Council of Community Ambassadors". It would operate on a permanent basis from the respective capitals to help remove barriers, at national levels, that frustrate implementation of regional decisions, and to strengthen co-operation.
If, after all the research materials and range of proposals over the years on alternative systems for improved governance of the community, Caricom leaders are to now offer a Council of Ambassadors as a standing mechanism for improving "governance", then they should not be surprised by an expected wave of cynicism and disenchantment across the region.
The Heads of Government may be scared of the politics of sharing a measure of sovereignty in the functioning of an empowered executive management structure, even though it is intended to function under their direct supervision and final authority.
How could it be explained -- if it is not a case of unintended contempt for the region's people -- the Heads' assumption of public acceptance of the proposed Council of Ambassadors as representing a creative effort for improved governance from the second decade of the 21st century?
Not flattering
For a start, the proposed Council of Ambassadors should not be confused with what obtains at the Organisation of American States (OAS), or in relation to the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group. For a start, such councils function from a common location-- Washington (for the OAS) and Brussels (for the ACP).
For now, we are aware of examples of how senior cabinet ministers, and in a few cases at Heads level, have encountered difficulties in resolving sensitive bilateral matters and also failing to take advantage of the disputes settlement provisions located in the revised Treaty of Chaguaramas.
It would not be flattering for the Heads to hear criticisms of them "joking around" on the governance issue. But it is quite disappointing to note, in 2010, that ours remains a "Community of sovereign states" that has acquired a reputation for making bold, at times quite imaginative decisions, only to falter, too often, when it comes to implementation of unanimously approved decisions.
Examples abound, but a few should suffice, for now, such as failure to give legislative approval of the Charter of Civil Society -- one of the core recommendations of the West Indian Commission that was released as a document of the community since 1997.
(Incidentally, "good governance" is one of the Articles of the Charter that calls for establishment of a code governing the conduct of holders of public office and all those who exercise power that may affect the public interest).
Policies requiring implementation would also include the sharing of external representation; pursuing, with vision and vigour, a common policy on regional air transportation; the dismantling of barriers to free intra-regional movement of Caricom nationals (currently some states are making things worse for nationals).
The question, therefore, remains: Who among the Heads of Government of the estimated dozen countries fully participating in the policies and programmes of Caricom is now ready to call a halt to the community's governance system?
While they try to market the idea of a Council of Community Ambassadors that, in the final analysis, would be accountable to them, why this widening of a bureaucratic management system? Is it really a plausible approach for changing the prevailing buck-passing culture that has been virtually institutionalised by a model of governance our Heads of Government — past and present — seem so loath to change?
August 22, 2010
jamaicaobserver
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)