Civil society and constitutional reform Pt: 2

Those who have been following this column, particularly over the past two weeks, would be aware of what I believe to be a fundamental connection between the involvement of organized civil society in governance and deepening the particular nature of that governance. We left off last week on the global recognition today of that process and its formal embedding in international agreements and institution.{{more}}

Unfortunately, much confusion abounds, some deliberately spread, whenever the issue of civil society participation is mentioned. There are even those who literally “see red” at such mention, linking it with constant pronouncements and some positive steps by Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves in that direction. But even in Gonsalves camp there is reservation, hesitation and sometimes outright resistance to embracing civil society participation at the highest level, Parliament.

The Chairman of the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC), Mr. Parnel Campbell Q.C., has taken time to answer these reservations and to provide succinct explanations via the media. He referred to the “unshakeable conviction” of the CRC that “problem-solving in the context of countries like ours is more effectively achieved by co-operation than by open conflict.” It is that conviction, the CRC went on to state in its Final Revised Report, that “led us to the belief that the introduction of Civil Society into the National Assembly (Parliament) is a necessary first step towards the goal of better decision-making in the legislative arm of governance- the creation of a non-political buffer zone, as it were.”

Yet there are those at the highest level who refuse to even give consideration to such an idea, as if it were a novel one. We heard statements to the effect that there are no “neutral persons” in politics, as though we are all duty- bound to jump to Road March 1984 or Road March 2001. Whether we all like one side or another is not the issue. It is the question of providing mechanisms which are more likely to produce more balanced, less politically partisan judgements which matter most. It is in this direction that the CRC’s proposal for a mere THREE civil society senators in a New National Assembly is creating all the stir.

Amusingly, some of these opposed seemed to want to eat their cake and still have it, accusing civil society representation as being un-elected and then turning on the CRC’s proposals for some form of ensuring accountability and representatively as being “undemocratic”. It as if the CRC were inventing civil society representation in Parliament, a fact of life in Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada, Barbados, and Jamaica to name a few. Nothing revolutionary about that!

In SVG, we have had advances by Parliament itself legislating for a National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDEC), a mix of the state and non-state sectors to perform advisory functions on major policies. With the co-operation of the European Union (EU) there is a Non-State Actor Advisory Council (NSA) to advise on EU-SVG Government co-operation programmes. Why then all the noise? Are we making the customary mistakes of seeing “civil society” in the form of a few civil society leaders, thereby leading to charges of civil society representation in Parliament as being “through the back-door” and challenges that such persons should face the polls?

Leh we “don’t go down there”, not today or any other time. Rather, let us uplift our heads and engage our brains about how we can best enrich and deepen democracy. I want, therefore, to go back to a document put out by the Organization of America States (OAS) on Constitutional Reform in the Caribbean, 2002, and to quote from its recommendations. “Proposals for Integrating Civil Society into the Political System.’

(1) Increasing the number of independent senators representing civil society groups and enhancing their ability to review and vote on legislation.

(2) Having the upper houses (of Parliament) composed entirely of community leaders and civic representatives to ensure the largest and most effective number of voices. Likewise, the “civil society senate” should be given substantial oversight responsibilities for the executive and the government.

The CRC, mindful of our own history and experiences, did not go for a whole “civil society senate” (was that a mistake?) but instead opted for a hybrid. Could we intelligently argue that we should blank this kind of inclusion altogether? Stick to “party animals?” Settle for limited space and opportunity to air independent views? In dis ya time?