Linden’s right to govern itself

Dear Editor,

Let me be absolutely clear. This is no longer simply a question about a toll. It is a question about the rule of law, local democracy, consultation and ultimately, it is about whether the people of Linden through their elected representatives still have a meaningful right to determine the affairs of their own community.

I speak on this matter not only as a Member of Parliament but as a former Mayor of Linden who has had to confront first-hand the continuing attempts to weaken the authority and financial capacity of our Town Council.

What has happened over the last 24 hours is deeply troubling. The Minister first wrote to the Council and declared the collection of the Kara Kara commercial toll “null, void and unlawful.” The basis advanced was that there was no by-law or order authorizing the collection. A uniformed position advanced to her by the town clerk.

The Council produced the evidence. The Linden Town Council (Toll) By-Laws 2016^[1] were lawfully made, approved through the statutory process and gazette in 2016.

Within hours, that argument changed. The issue was no longer that the legal instrument did not exist. Instead, the Minister moved yesterday, (2nd Sept.) to revoke it.^[1]

That extraordinary reversal raises an extraordinary legal question as to “where does the Minister get the power to unilaterally revoke an approved and gazetted Municipal By-law?”

The legal and fundamental issue before the Council, is that while the law gives the Minister a role in approving or rejecting proposed By-laws, it does not expressly confer an unrestricted power upon the Minister to revoke an already-approved By-law.

Where subsidiary legislations are concerned, the Interpretation and General Clauses Act requires amendment, suspension, or revocation to be done by the same authority beginning at the Council, in the same manner in which it was initially made.

As such, the action by the Minister is ultra vires. This is beyond the authority given to her by Parliament, that is not a small technicality. It goes to the very foundation of constitutional government.

Also, there is another question that the government must answer.

Where was the consultation? Article 13 of our Constitution^[2] establishes a democratic principle that citizens must be afforded meaningful opportunities to participate in the management and decision-making processes of the State.

This was a decision affecting the finances of an elected local authority. A decision capable of removing more than $100 million annually from the revenue base of the Linden Town Council.

A decision that directly affects the Council’s ability to provide services to the people of Linden and to fulfill their Administrative responsibilities to staff.

Where was the consultation with the Council? Where was the engagement with the elected representatives of the people? Where was the discussion about how Linden would replace this revenue? Where was the opportunity for the people who will ultimately bear the consequences to have their voices heard? There was none. That is exactly the reason why Article 13 cannot be reduced to words in a constitutional document.

Democracy is not only the right to vote every five years. Democracy is having a voice in decisions that affect your life between elections.

Article 72 recognizes the existence of local democratic organs. Article 76 provides the framework for their functions^[3], including their capacity to raise revenue. These provisions exist because local government is supposed to bring government closer to the people.

So, what are we really seeing? The Centre makes the decision. The Centre controls the resources. The Centre removes the revenue. Whereafter the local authority is left to answer to the people for services it increasingly lacks the resources to provide. That is not decentralization. That is centralization wearing the clothes of local government.

We must understand the deeper danger. Guyana has a long history of communities determining their own affairs. The village movement was built by ordinary working people who understood that ownership, organisation and collective action were instruments of freedom. Our communities built homes.

They acquired lands. They established schools, churches and community institutions. They organized themselves. They struggled. They sacrificed. They built villages and communities not because governments gave them permission to dream but because they believed that ordinary people had a right to shape their own future.

That tradition of self-determination is part of the historical DNA of Guyana. It runs through our revolutionary struggles. It runs through the village movement. It runs through the struggles of working people for dignity, ownership and control over their own affairs. So, today, when central government systematically removes the authority and resources from elected local institutions, it does more than weaken a council. It weakens the people’s capacity to determine their own destiny.

So, this is the reason why this matter is considered to be bigger than Kara Kara. It is bigger than a toll. It is about whether the Government believes communities should have genuine agency or whether every meaningful decision must ultimately flow from Georgetown. I reject that philosophy.

Linden must not become a town that is governed for the people and never with the people.

Our Constitution did not establish local democracy as a decorative institution. Article 13 did not contemplate citizens being spectators to decisions already made behind closed doors. The people must participate. Their elected representatives must be respected and the institutions created to serve them must have the authority and resources necessary to do their work.

Therefore, I ask the Government three simple questions.

First, what is the precise statutory authority under which the Minister revoked the 2016 By-Laws? Second, what legal instrument made those By-Laws unlawful before the Minister purported to revoke them? Third, where was the meaningful consultation required by the democratic spirit of Article 13 before a decision of this magnitude was imposed upon Linden?

Those are not unreasonable questions. They are questions the Government have a constitutional and democratic responsibility to answer.

Power is not the same thing as authority. A Minister may possess power but in a constitutional democracy that power must remain within the law. When the law establishes local democratic institutions, those institutions cannot simply be pushed aside whenever central government finds them inconvenient.

Linden has struggled too long, worked too hard and built too much to surrender its democratic voice now. We will defend the rule of law. We will defend the principle that the people of Linden, through their elected representatives, have a legitimate right to participate in determining the future of Linden. Ultimately, this is the question before Guyana, “Do we want a democracy in which government governs people or a democracy in which people participate in governing themselves?”

I know where I stand. I stand with the people. I stand with Linden. I stand for the constitutional principle that the government must never become so powerful that it forgets where its power comes from.

References

1. Manickchand revokes Linden Town Council By-laws that legalised toll collection from commercial vehicles - News Source Guyana — newssourcegy.com ↩
2. Article 13 confuses two different types of democracy - Stabroek News — www.stabroeknews.com ↩
3. Local government financing and democracy - ChrisRam.net — www.chrisram.net ↩