Civil Society, Governance and Social Consensus

• Author: Hugh Cholmondeley
• Pages: 467-474

Hugh Cholmondeley 467467

467467

467

31

H U G H C H O L M O N D E L E Y

Social Partners

Context

The context is set by developments in

Guyana around the middle of 2002 when

three organizations concerned with the ‘rule

of law’, the ‘conduct of business’, and ‘the

welfare of workers’, formed a group called

the ‘Social Partners’. They had conducted an

analysis of conditions in the country and

prepared a paper entitled ‘Shared

Governance’2 which suggested some

approaches that might be considered in the

task of building consensus for a framework

that could improve the quality of governance

and raise current standards of political

accountability.

The group argued that the unsettling

conditions which followed elections in 2001,

did not augur well for achieving the goal of a

secure future for the country and its citizens.

Protests, demonstrations, violence, growing

racial tension, declining economic and

commercial activity, the People’s National

Congress/Reform (PNCR) boycott of

Parliament and suspension of talks between

the President and Leader of the Opposition

were considered to be major constraints that,

if not removed, would derail efforts at growth

and development. In these circumstances, they

suggested that Article 13 of the revised

Constitution3 harboured good prospects for

achieving stability through the increased

Civil Society, Governance and Social Consensus1

participation of citizens in decisions that affected

their well-being.

The Social Partners believed that collective

examination of their model of ‘shared

governance’ by the holders of the

constitutionally recognized offices of President,

Leader of the Opposition, Leaders of

Parliamentary political parties together with

representatives of civil society would open

possibilities for aggressive attention to the

country’s development problems thereby

helping to reduce the stultifying effects of

protracted political, economic, social and

racial difficulties.

Different perceptions continue to exist of

the extent to which the group accomplished

its objectives. Defenders point to its success in

organizing a first-ever Joint Consultation on

matters of national importance; its advocacy

for a greater role for citizens and their

organizations in national matters and its efforts

to assist in crafting a joint Communiqué on

Crime during a period when the main victims

of violence were persons of Indian origin.

Detractors still question the group’s bona fides,

the integrity of its member organizations; its

failure to embrace other civil society

organizations, and the credibility of some of

its representatives who are singled out as

holding anti-government positions.

Nonetheless, at least three important

outcomes can be said to result from the group’s