The niggling issue of good governance in the Caribbean Community

By Ellsworth John



The issue of good governance in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has generated much discussion, as its citizens become increasingly frustrated by what they perceive as a lack of progress with the community’s agenda. As early as July 1989, as reflected in the Grand Anse Declaration, there was acknowledgement that there was need for a people centered governance structure. The declaration speaks of “the special roles of ...…people of all walks and conditions of life in moving CARICOM forward.

Since then many studies have been commissioned to look at the issue of governance and the prevailing idea has been for a Commission of three prominent persons with executive powers to ensure implementation of decision. In 1992, through the Time for Action, a seminal product of the West Indian Commission, it was proposed that a CARICOM Commission should be established with its membership drawn from within the region’s public and political ranks with a president, two other commissioners and the secretary general as an ex-officio member. Since then a number of task forces have been established and until last year when the council of ambassadors was proposed as an implementation vehicle, the recommendations have all been basically a tinkering of the original concept of a commission of three.

The Technical Working Group on Governance, established in 2005 and chaired by Professor Vaughan Lewis, did a comprehensive overview of the issues related to decision making and their implementation and made some pertinent observations about the problem. Yet the solution offered still had its genesis in the recommendations of the West Indian Commission Report, which almost twenty years later, the heads of government are no closer to implementing.

The elitist, top down construct of the Commission proposed over the years flies in the face of effective implementation when there is a general acceptance that citizen participation is vital to moving the integration process forward. To quote directly from the Lewis Report “in the discussions with the Heads of Government, Leaders of Opposition and other persons, the TWG has been impressed by their persistent emphasis on the importance of citizen participation in the decision-making process and in the legitimisation of decisions taken in regard to the nature and pace of the integration process.”

We flirt with the concept of citizen participation without designing at the national level, an effective uniformed model to ensure more effective consultation among the citizens. No wonder there is an implementation deficit. The solution to the problem must of necessity be grounded in pragmatism.

The effects of the global financial crisis, the collapse of CLICO and British American, the uprisings in the Middle East and Northern Africa and the expected negative impact on oil prices and food security are issues that are confronting our various cabinets and their electorates whose needs are always pressing and have the urgency of now. There is no denying that all of our governments understand that there is need for collective action to confront these national issues, but there is need for an individual to be identified in each country whose primary responsibility is regional integration.

This person should be named as Ambassador to CARICOM and be given a staff. He/she should be located in the Office of the Prime Minister to give him/her the requisite power and authority to fulfil the mandate given to the office of Ambassador. I refuse to believe that in each of our countries, we cannot find a person of sufficient political heft and acumen to fill that role. To do so might be to make a tacit admission that only in certain countries are there persons of that stature, one of the fundamental, nationalistic reasons why the concept of a Commission of three, while noble, has had no traction.

At the national level, three bodies are necessary: A cabinet Committee on Regional Integration, an Inter-ministerial Committee on Regional Integration and a forum that allows the views of the civil society, NGOs and political opposition parties to be expressed. The latter two committees should be chaired by the ambassador who would then report to the Cabinet Committee on Regional Integration. This is a pragmatic method for dealing with the issue of implementation. This, however, does not entirely deal with the issue of decision making.

This requires change in the way the issues are generated and decisions are made. First, it is necessary to accept the construct for governance that when the heads meet twice per year it is to look at the broad policy framework for the community and to assess the results of implementation of those broad policies. It requires change in the way the Secretariat conducts its work to incorporate participation by the ambassador in the conceptualization of the agenda for heads. Their participation is essential so as to avoid an agenda driven solely by a bureaucratic viewpoint, but also with a political outlook.

In essence, what I have just described is how the Permanent Committee of Ambassadors should work and why I support its establishment. The original proposal submitted by the Prime Minister of Jamaica called for the Permanent Committee of Ambassadors to be based in Guyana; however, that eliminates the vital national role that the ambassadors must play in the implementation of decisions.

Let’s be practical in our approach to the issue of governance.

March 12, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 1)

By Sir Shridath Ramphal



It was here in St George’s 95 years ago that T.A. Marryshow flew from the masthead of his pioneering newspaper The West Indian the banner: The West Indies Must Be Westindian. And on that banner Westindian was symbolically one joined-up word – from the very first issue on 1 January 1915. In the slogan was a double entendre. To be West Indian was both the goal of self-determination attained and the strategy of unity for reaching and sustaining it.

Of course the goal of freedom kept changing its form as the world changed: internal self-government in the pre-war years; formal independence in the post-war years; the reality of freedom in the era of globalization; overcoming smallness in a world of giants. But the strategy of regional unity, the strategy of oneness, would not change, at least not nominally: we called it by different names and pursued it by different forms -- always with variable success: federation; integration, the OECS, CARIFTA, CARICOM, the CSME, the CCJ. It is that ‘variable success’ that today begs the question: Is The West Indies West Indian? Nearly 100 years after Marryshow asserted that we must be, are we yet? Worse still, are we less so than we once were?

Times changed in the nineteen twenties and thirties – between the ‘world wars’. The external economic and political environments changed; and the internal environments changed – social, political and most of all demographic. Local control began to pass to the hands of local creoles, mainly professionals, later trade unionists, and for a while the new political class saw value in a strategy of regional unity. Maryshow’s slogan ‘the West Indies must be West Indian’ was evocative of it; and for two generations, West Indian ‘unity’ was a progressive political credo.

It was a strategy that was to reach its apogee in the Federation of The West Indies: due to become independent in mid-1962. It is often forgotten that the ‘the’ in the name of the new nation was consciously spelt with a capital ‘T’ – The West Indies - an insistence on the oneness of the federated region. But, by then, that was verbal insistence against a contrary reality, already re-emerging. The new political elites for whom ‘unity’ offered a pathway to political power through ‘independence’ had found by the 1960s that that pathway was opening up regardless.

In the event, regional unity was no longer a pre-condition to ‘local control’. Hence, Norman Manley’s deal with McLeod and the referendum in Jamaica; and Eric Williams’ self-indulgent arithmetic that ‘1’ from ‘10’ left ‘0’; even ‘the agony of the eight’ that ended the dream. Despite the rhetorical passion that had characterized the latter years of the ‘federal movement’ the imperishable impulse for ‘local control’ had revived, and the separatist instincts of a controlling social and political elite had prevailed. Within four months of the dispersion of the Federation (on the same day in May 1962 that it was to become a single independent member state of the Commonwealth) Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago became so separately. We can act with speed when we really want to!

But objective realities are not blown away by winds of narrow ambition, Independence on a separate basis had secured ‘local control’; but the old nemesis of colonialism was replaced by the new suzerainty of globalization. Independence, particularly for Caribbean micro states, was not enough to deliver Elysium. ‘Unity’ no sooner discarded was back in vogue; but less a matter of the heart than of the head.

In an interdependent world which in the name of liberalization made no distinctions between rich and poor, big and small, regional unity was compulsive. West Indian states -- for all their new flags and anthems -- needed each other for survival; ‘unity’ was the only protective kit they could afford. Only three years after the rending ‘referendum’ came the first tentative steps to ‘unity’ in 1965 with CARIFTA; ‘tentative’, because the old obsession with ‘local control’ continued to trump oneness – certainly in Cabinet Rooms; but in some privileged drawing rooms too; though less so in village markets and urban street corners.

Despite the new external compulsions, therefore, the pursuit of even economic unity, which publics largely accepted, has been a passage of attrition. It has taken us from 1965 to 2010 -- 45 years -- to crawl through CARIFTA and CARICOM, through the fractured promises of Chaguaramas and Grand Anse, and through innumerable pious Declarations and Affirmations and Commitments. The roll call of unfulfilled pledges and promises and unimplemented decisions is so staggering that in 2011 a cul de sac looms.

At Grand Anse in 1989, West Indian political leaders declared that “inspired by the spirit of co-operation and solidarity among us (we) are moved by the need to work expeditiously together to deepen the integration process and strengthen the Caribbean Community in all of its dimensions” They agreed a specific work programme ‘to be implemented over the next four years’ with primacy given “towards the establishment, in the shortest possible time of a single market and economy”. That was 22 years ago. The West Indian Commission (also established at Grand Anse) confidently charted the way, declaring it a ‘Time for Action’. West Indian technicians took their leaders to the brink with the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas. But there was no action – no political action, no political will to act. In twenty-two years, nothing decisive has happened to fulfill the dream of Grand Anse. Over those two decades the West Indies has drawn steadily away from being West Indian.

Not surprisingly, when Heads of Government meet in Grenada later this month it will be at a moment of widespread public disbelief that the professed goal of a ‘Single Market and Economy’ will ever be attained, or even that their political leaders are any longer “inspired by the spirit of co-operation and solidarity” or “moved by the need to work expeditiously together to deepen the integration process and strengthen the Caribbean Community in all its dimensions” - as they proclaimed at Grand Anse in 1989.

Words alone are never enough, except to deceive. As Paul Southwell used to remind us in Shakespearian allusion: “Words, words, words; promises, promises, promises; tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow”. Nothing’s changed. In the acknowledged quest for survival (including political survival) the old urge for ‘local control’ by those in control has not matured to provide real space for the ‘unity’ we say we need. Like 19th century colonists we strive to keep our rocks in our pockets – despite the enhanced logic of pooling our resources, and the enlarged danger of ‘state capture’ by unelected groups and external forces while we dally.

The West Indies cannot be West Indian if West Indian affairs, regional matters, are not the unwritten premise of every Government’s agenda; not occasionally, but always; not as ad hoc problems, but as the basic environment of policy. It is not so now. How many Caribbean leaders have mentioned CARICOM in their New Year messages this year? Only the Prime Minister of Grenada in his capacity as the new Chairman of CARICOM. For most West Indian Governments Caribbean integration is a thing apart, not a vital organ of national life.

It seems that only when it is fatally damaged or withers away will Cabinet agendas change.

But let us remember, a civilization cannot survive save on a curve that goes upward, whatever the blips in between; to go downward, whatever the occasional glimpses of glory, is to end ingloriously. Caribbean civilization is not an exception. It is now as it was 95 years ago with Marryshow: The West Indies must be West Indian.

As current Chairman of CARICOM Prime Minister Tillman Thomas has rightly called for the West Indian people to be better informed and more intimately engaged in the regional project. CARICOM is essentially about people; about West Indian people; but, in truth, they have been too remote from its being. They are its heartbeat; but in the small states that we all are Governments tend to occupy the entire space of governance. They control the bloodstream of the integration process and when anemia threatens, as it does now, it is an infusion of people power that is needed to resuscitate CARICOM.

The foregoing is an extract from the Eleventh Sir Archibald Nedd Memorial Lecture delivered by Sir Shridath Ramphal in Grenada on 28 January 2011.

February 8, 2011

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 2)

Is The West Indies West Indian? (Part 3)

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

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