Federalism will not solve the issue of the distribution of power at the centre

By Clarence Ellis, David Hinds and Kimani Nehusi
Posted October 10th. 2004

It is good that Mr. Ravi Dev agrees with many of our proposals for comprehensive local government reform in his letter captioned "Federalism proposes a matrix of power centres" (SN, Sept 23rd). In our response to Mr. Bakr (25.9.2004) "The viability of changes in the rural areas depends on the commitment of the PPP/C and PNCR to fundamental change", we pointed out that transparency in allocating resources to the regions can be put into effect for the 2005 budget. The interaction we outlined is central to the interaction of top-down and bottom-up relations and constitutes an example of what Dr. David Hinds calls vertical democracy.

In the present state of indecision about local government elections, it is at the very least possible to implement this change in the method of allocating resources to the Regions. This change can be regarded as part of a step-wise approach to comprehensive democratic local government reform.

Mr. Dev, as a member of Parliament, can initiate efforts in Parliament in the remaining months of 2004 to put the reform of transparency into effect. This would make more sense than waiting for the presentation of the 2005 budget to Parliament and then screaming with varying levels of hostility at biases in resource allocations when the budget is read.

Putting this interaction process into place in 2004 contrasts our proposals with the difficulties that would arise in implementing Mr. Dev's federal proposals. Federalism will not solve the issue of the distribution of power at the centre nor answer questions about what powers will be given to the "states." National assets would still be under the control of a one-race federal government.

For example, it would be difficult to split the control of the telecommunications operations into federal units. If a large alumina plant comes into operation, its returns should accrue to the whole state and not just to Demerara. The sea-defence operations will benefit from central management as will the road transportation system especially when it includes the maintenance of the road to Brazil. Energy policy, which is woefully inefficient, requires central policy formulation, central efforts to raise investments and central management to develop our hydropower potential so that cheaper energy can reduce manufacturing costs.

The devolution of power in Guyana's circumstances can answer the questions of racial insecurity better at the village and town levels than at the "state" level as proposed by Mr. Dev's federalism. In the associated attempts at democratisation, it is important to understand the nature of the authoritarianism that has to be reduced. Authoritarianism has roots that go deeper than in the colonial state.

It results from the patriarchy and power driven relations in the dominant institutions of Western society. The colonial state was only one consequence of the power relations in Western society that have come about from the development over the past centuries of (i) European empires, (ii) ecclesiastical establishments, (iii) nation states and (iv) modern corporations. The hierarchical relations of the colonial state were underpinned by the combined authority of these patriarchal institutions as they evolved world wide, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The interaction of the established church with the governing elite and the Bookers and Sandbach Parkers and the Dembas constituted the colonial state that was legitimised in the authority of the United Kingdom. In so far as authoritarianism and the authoritarian state have persisted after "the departure of the imperial master," they are a function of a convergence of the authoritarian political culture outlined above, and the struggle for power between East Indians and Africans. An agreed legitimacy of the "continuance" of the authoritarian relations of the pre-independence order was never established (because of the struggle) nor was there the time for a transplantation of the supporting culture that humanised authoritarianism.

Our central point is that the enlightened answer to the repressive patriarchal power syndrome that we face (substitute authoritarianism in this conversation) is the "[devolution of] power to the local level-ultimately (over many years) to within the individual." (See Willis Harman and John Horman in "Creative Work: The Constructive Role of Business in a Transforming Society"). "This devolution is supported by a number of trends in the overall pattern of social movements-decentralisation of power from higher to lower levels-return to human scale in structuring-resurgence of localism-de-bureaucratisation-worker self management-humanisation of the workplace-focus on self-help and the development of new individual ways of being."

Progressive organisations like Red Thread have already embraced this democratisation process and ,with the oversight of Regional Democratic Councillors, can assist the local communities in the transformation of their productive and their social relations along lines of the improving pattern of social movements . Two of us, Clarence Ellis and Dr. Kimani Nehusi are Essequibians with property in Essequibo. We would not be migrating from Essequibo and will require guarantees that power will be "devolved to the local level and ultimately to the individual" in an Essequibo federal "state" as would East Indians living in the Demerara federal unit. In other words, the problem of democratisation is not solved by the matrix of centres but by democratising the authoritarian interactions of Western type patriarchal systems.

We make bold to say that democratisation as herein conceived is the best guarantee of racial harmony.

We agree with Mr. Dev that our groups have remained "culturally distinct" and that there should be a focus on a "just distribution of power amongst those groups." In our formulation, that power must be devolved to villages and communities and "ultimately to within the individual."