In any democracy citizens expect public institutions to be transparent and accountable. Hence, institutions such as the parliament, government ministries, the courts, law enforcement agencies etc. must always strive to engage the various stakeholders in the society as to how they can be more open, transparent and accessible to the public.
Too many times, public institutions operate with a high degree of secrecy and away from public scrutiny. The end result is that, in addition to ordinary citizens being denied an opportunity to direct probing questions to those in authority, the democratic processes of the nation is stifled as the valuable contributions of the relevant stakeholders are excluded from the developmental processes.
Just recently we witnessed the APNU members walking out of the committee tasked with finalizing the anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism legislation over the private sector being given an ‘observer’ status to the deliberations. This legislation is aimed at ensuring that Guyana complies with certain international financial regulations with respect to money laundering and financing of terrorism activities.
The behaviour displayed by the APNU is nothing short of being reckless and irresponsible as the private sector is considered one of the key stakeholders likely to be affected by this legislation. It boggles the mind as to why would any responsible political party deny a key player such as the private sector body an opportunity to merely ‘observe’ how an important piece of legislation is being addressed by members of a special select committee.
Notwithstanding, we are pleased that efforts are being made by the authorities to ensure that there is more openness and transparency with regards to the happenings in the national assembly. Last week, the Parliament Office and the Canadian government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), paving the way for the provision of live Internet streaming of all parliamentary business, sittings, committee meetings and other parliamentary-related activities.
This is certainly a step in the right direction and is evidence that Guyana is gradually working at building and strengthening its democratic practices. Through the project, Canada is working with Guyana to provide the structure required to facilitate the transmission of information from the legislature to the people, thereby encouraging greater democratic participation.
The relationship between parliament and the people is of growing importance everywhere. Citizens want to be informed about what is happening in the national assembly and how they will be affected. Also, they want to see and hear for themselves how well elected officials are representing their interests.
Similarly, elected officials want persons to be better informed about the work they do on a daily basis on their (citizens) behalf. In fact quite a number of parliaments around the world have established TV and radio channels dedicated to broadcasting parliamentary proceedings where citizens are fully engaged.
No doubt the internet is the future. It is considered one of the best ways to disseminate content of parliamentary proceedings to the public. The basic idea of transmission via the internet is to give the public free and full access to debates and other activities in the parliament. Some would ask why should there be live streaming of parliamentary proceedings; the reason for this is that there is need to create a direct link between citizens and those elected to represent them. Even though this may not necessarily lead to a better understanding of, or greater public interest in politics, live streaming on the internet will enable more persons to watch and listen, allowing them to form their own opinions without any interference.
That said, it is hoped that the process itself will be carried out in a transparent and independent manner. Professional criteria can be used to decide if the entire or sections of the parliamentary sessions will be streamed. Important questions such as who decides what will or will not be streamed, or who controls the cameras etc. would need to be taken into consideration.
It would also be useful if a facility is provided where there can be some level of interaction between lawmakers and other parliamentary officials and citizens themselves where they (citizens) can ask questions, seek clarifications or simply leave a comment on how they feel about a particular issue.
The essence of this is to get the involvement of citizens on matters concerning their own welfare. Not only would such a facility create a direct link between the electors and the electorate, but it would serve to provide useful citizens’ feedback to elected officials on issues affecting ordinary persons in the society.
This type of engagement can only make democracy stronger.
