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

Bahamas Blog International

Caricom's management change overdue

Analysis
Rickey Singh



ARRANGEMENTS have been finalised for a special meeting in Grenada of seven Caribbean Community Heads of Government to discuss the critical matter of "governance" on Tuesday, August 17.

But the big question remains: how seriously committed are the leaders of our 37-year-old economic integration movement to grappling with the elusive but very vital issue of governance?

They have been doing the ritual political merry-go-round on this governance challenge ever since the 1992 Time for Action report was issued by The West Indian Commission.

A new governance system, relevant to the challenges of our time, has been on and off the Caricom leaders' work agenda for at least 14 years, dating back to the West Indian Commission's 1992 report, followed by a series of other reports from technocrats and, lastly, that of 2006 from a Technical Working Group (TWG) on "matured regional governance".

A litany of deferred decisions on governance has been the norm. Then it came as a surprise when this prickly topic surfaced again at last month's 31st regular annual Caricom Heads of Government Conference in Montego Bay.

It occurred against the backdrop of spreading discontent and cynicism over the evident lack of progress in completion of the single market arrangements — not to mention the related major project of inauguration of the much-touted common regional economic space.

In the process, two significant developments occurred behind closed doors in Montego Bay.

Conceding that there can no longer be a business-as-usual approach in the face of declining faith in effective governance of the community's wide-ranging policies and programmes, there was a caucus session that focused both on Edwin Carrington's future with Caricom as well as the way forward for the community in all major areas of operation.

By the time the July 4-7 Montego Bay summit concluded, we were learning that consensus had emerged to treat with urgency the business of governance of the community, and particularly in relation to its flagship CSME project.

It was agreed that a special meeting of the Caricom Bureau, plus some other leaders of the 15-member community, would take place in Grenada and that they would be assisted by members of the TWG on "matured regional governance" that was chaired by Dr Vaughn Lewis.

Sitting on hands

It is of relevance to note here that Caricom leaders have been sitting on their hands on the TWG's recommendations for more than three years. The centrepiece of recommendations submitted was the creation of a high-level commission, or similar mechanism, with executive authority and functioning under the direct supervision of Heads of Government.

This specific recommendation was to serve as a reminder of the idea that had originated with the 1992 West Indian Commission, under Sir Shridath Ramphal's chairmanship. The commission had proposed an empowered three-member Caricom Commission to help deal with the challenges of effective governance.

The intention now is for the outcome of this Tuesday's meeting in St George's to be forwarded for decision at a special meeting of Caricom Heads late next month in Jamaica, whose prime minister is the current chairman of the community.

However, while the committee of Caricom leaders was preparing for the meeting in St George's, there came the breaking news from Secretary General Carrington that he had informed Heads of Government of his decision to retire from his post, effective December 31, 2010.

Consequently, a core feature of next week's meeting in Grenada will be the focus on finding a new secretary general to be on board from January 1, 2011.

Prime Minister Golding has been quick to deny suggestions that Carrington may have been "pushed" into advancing his retirement — almost two years before the conclusion of his current fourth term contract.

On the other hand, by his own statement of August 4, Carrington had declared: "The last 18 years have been the pinnacle of my public service career. I have, despite the odds, done all I could to help create a viable and secure community for all..."

Strong voice

Whatever his detractors may now say, Carrington, as head of the Secretariat in Georgetown, has been — warts and all — a strong, regular public voice, via the region's media, in support and defence of Caricom.

There has undoubtedly been progress over the years to applaud, particularly in areas of functional co-operaton, trade and external relations. But there is also blame to be shared between the Secretariat's management and the political directorate of Caricom, in terms of implementation of approved major policies and programmes. Think, for example, the mounting frustration to realise the full CSME.

Carrington was perhaps the equivalent of a chief executive officer functioning in co-operation with the Heads of Government as the regional political directorate with ultimate responsibility.

Now that the community leaders appear willing to take new initiatives in the direction of a management structure relevant to effective "governance for the 21st century", it is to be hoped that the recommendations to emerge from Tuesday's meeting in St George's will prove helpful for hard decisions at the special meeting of Heads planned for late next month in Jamaica.

In accordance with the sentiment of the West Indian Commission's seminal report, it is most certainly "time for action" by Caricom to achieve a quality of governance to make a reality policies and programmes seriously hampered by lack of implementation processes -- whatever the contributing factors.

The CSME project, too long in the making (following the historic Grand Anse Declaration of 1989), as well as the comparatively recent Economic Partnership Agreement with Europe (June 2009i), are outstanding examples of the need for an envisaged new architecture of governance to ensure systematic and timely implementation of decisions.


August 15, 2010


jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International