Prior to embarking on another constitution reform project it would be useful to review and obtain lessons learnt from the 1999/2000 reforms

As the nation embarks on another constitution reform project, we must not overlook the valuable knowledge and experience we can obtain from reviewing the 1999/2000 reforms. That last national effort was a direct response to the grievances of large masses of Guyanese over the lack of good governance, perceived and actual discrimination and marginalization, executive lawlessness, and ethnic insecurity. While the 1999/2000 constitution reforms were proximately triggered by the 1997 election and the large public protests in its aftermath, subjective and objective grievances were rumbling years prior under the then PPP government.

The previous reform process therefore had four main objectives to achieve: i) improve good governance in general, ii) reduce ethnic insecurity and discord, iii) deepen and broaden political participation and inclusion, and (iv) ensure equality of opportunity in the distribution of state resources, especially in the award of government contracts. Twenty-five years later, how much progress has our nation made in the attainment of these critical objectives? For instance, several constitutional commissions were established, such as those for ethnic relations, human rights, women and gender equality, Indigenous Peoples, and public procurement. Article 212F captures and enshrines several reasons for creating these bodies - in particular, that “there could be disastrous consequences for the society and country at large if the issues are not attended to and monitored.” How have these commissions performed?

The 1999/2000 reform process also laid the foundation for the remodeling of the local government system based on such measures as the allocation of resources to local councils using objective criteria (Article 77A), and the establishment of the Local Government Commission (Article 78A). Are citizens in their communities feeling or seeing any of these changes? A batch of reforms also targeted parliament, including the much-heralded formation of the Par-liamentary Sectoral Committees on natural resources, economic services, foreign relations, and social services (Article 119 B). How have they worked? Are their shortcomings due to faults in design or operation?

We must also look at Article 13 (Objective of political system) – probably the most quoted article in our constitution – which mandates us to establish both inclusionary democracy (the idea and practice of involving multi-stakeholder representation across political, ethnic, and other

lines in national decision-making), and participatory democracy (the more direct involvement of citizens in national decisionmaking through, for example, referendums and voter initiatives). To what extent has this article been implemented? Under good governance, apart from participation, equity, and inclusiveness, the 1999/2000 constitution reforms also advanced the cause of transparency and accountability in government, and political independence of state entities (such as the Auditor General). Again, we need to assess progress or the lack of it.

President of the Caribbean Court of Justice, Justice Adrian Saunders, considers our constitution one of the most advanced in the region. But what does this mean? Most advanced on paper or in action? So, as we embark on its overhaul, we can gain enormously in reviewing the current document by (i) measuring the extent of enactment of previous reforms, (ii) conducting impact assessments and performance audits of the purpose-built agencies and mechanisms, (iii) polling the level of satisfaction and perception of the population, and (iv) evaluating the extent to which a bad-faith government can undermine or circumvent reforms.

Without such a review, the new reform process is likely to be inefficient and unsighted. Lastly, in parallel with a review, we, as a nation, must ask ourselves what we wish this new reform project to achieve. Is there a widespread public demand for a new governing philosophy, a new governance framework, or new solutions to persistent problems, as was the case prior to and in the aftermath of the 1997 election?