Local elections

Tomorrow the nation’s citizens go to the polls to vote for their local authorities. It will be the second time that local government elections will be held after a hiatus of more than 20 years. They should have been run off in 1997, but were postponed initially owing to events following the death of Dr Cheddi Jagan, and Mrs Janet Jagan’s accession to the presidency. Subsequent to that in 2001, a Joint Task Force on Local Government Reform was set up between President Bharrat Jagdeo and Opposition Leader Desmond Hoyte, with the PNCR insisting on the proviso that legislative reform should precede elections.

That might not have caused undue delay in and of itself, but Mr Hoyte died, and it was a while before a similar arrangement was put in place by Mr Jagdeo and the new Opposition Leader, Mr Robert Corbin. As it was, the negotiations, which the average person might have thought would proceed with relative dispatch, dragged on interminably, and the Task Force was itself subject to hindrances.

In a general sense, at the base of the problem at that stage was the reluctance of the governing party to relinquish the control it exercised over local authorities; it sought in addition to maintain the traditional party associations at the local level. Since the PNCR was at that point in opposition, it was more open to greater autonomy for local bodies. However, given the gridlock in the Task Force which the PPP/C Chairman did nothing to ameliorate, President Jagdeo eventually decided to take the matter out of its hands and send it back to Parliament for consideration by Select Committee. Since both parties were needed for the passage of local government legislation, it was mired there for another epoch, President Donald Ramotar adding his own contribution to the procrastination.

It is to the credit of the coalition government that it was able to hold local government elections on March 18, 2016 under the new arrangements which had been hammered out between the two major parties. There is, however, one caveat, and that is that once in power the coalition government appeared almost as reluctant to release the local authorities from its grip as the PPP/C before it had been. The mechanism of course was different, and concerned the establishment of the Local Government Commission, which under the statute is responsible for senior appointments in the local authorities and takes some of the decision-making out of the hands of the Minister of Communities. It was not until the end of last year that the Commission finally came into existence.

So now once again the electorate will go the voting booth to vote twice: once to cast their ballot under the traditional proportional representation system, and once under First Past The Post. The idea of the latter was to allow local communities to take back control of running their neighbourhoods, so the political parties did not completely dominate local government bodies.

It could be asked whether this worked the first time around. It is true that the turn-out in 2016 was higher than that in 1994 – 47.1% as against roughly 30+%. However, this could still not be described as a dramatic increase. Furthermore, the results showed that for the most part people still clung to parties rather than put their x next to untried groups or individuals.

There were exceptions, such as the 8th of May Movement which got twelve seats in Beterverwagting/Triumph under Proportional Representation as well as First Past The Post. There was too Kwakwani United for Progress, which was the only other independent group to win the popular vote. It secured 422 votes as compared to 328 for the coalition and 56 for the PPP. It will be interesting to see what happens in these locations this time around.

For the rest, the story in 2016 was a familiar local government one: the PPP/C won the popular vote with 25,000 more ballots than the APNU+AFC Coalition. Georgetown, with the country’s largest concentration of population, voted overwhelmingly for APNU – it could hardly even be said that it did so for the AFC as well. But there were political reasons for that: the city was treated so poorly by the PPP/C government, that the population made a point of voting for the coalition, no matter who the individuals were – unsavoury or otherwise. The problem for the capital’s electorate is that the representatives they voted into office in order to ensure the incumbents remained displaced, instituted a slew of unpopular if not dubious measures, triggering an inquiry. One cannot help but wonder whether the inquiry is an attempt by central government at damage control.

Arguably, the most unusual development in local government over the last two years was the Movement Against Parking Meters. This was an entirely spontaneous, non-political response to the attempt by those who control City Hall to install parking meters from a foreign company. They are designed to charge residents unthinkable sums in what is essentially a low-wage economy. The protocols and statutes which obtain in such matters do not appear to have been observed, and those who live and work in the capital, of all ages, classes and political persuasions, brought themselves out on a sustained protest. One of the leaders of that movement is on the ballot. In terms of all the issues in the capital affecting a wide swathe of residents, not excluding vendors, it will be interesting to see what Georgetown’s residents do tomorrow, the inquiry notwithstanding.

In addition to the city, the coalition won the popular vote in New Amsterdam, Mabaruma, Bartica and Lethem. Three municipalities aside – Anna Regina, Rose Hall, Corriverton – the heartland of the PPP’s popular vote was in the NDCs, which would hardly surprise anyone.

It is impossible to know whether the populace is more educated about how the local government system works than it was the last time, and whether it will turn out in greater numbers. It is impossible to know too whether the few areas which took an independent turn in 2016 will repeat their choices, and whether any of those who voted party will break from that tradition on this occasion. Lastly, of course, there is the question of the AFC which will be paddling its own canoe, and may well pay a price for that.

What is important, however, is that citizens go out and vote, and begin the process by which they do indeed take back control of their communities.