In a genuinely developed, democratic society public participation
in national decision-making would be a challenge only in terms
of how to effectively garner the attention of people who may
be otherwise pre-occupied with the natural personal demands
of life.
In other types of societies there is a prior challenge to
persuade both decision-makers and those who will be impacted
upon to take participation seriously.
Let us take the case of international trade negotiations for
example. As noted last week the stakes are high in terms of
the impact of agreements signed in distant lands by so-called
representatives of the people of the Caribbean.
Admittedly, trade negotiations are not the most “sexy”
of issues. Yet, given the seriousness of the implications
there is a legitimate case for bending over backward on the
part of those who are representing regional society to involve
as many as possible.
I like to use the analogy of the new brand of toothpaste as
the approach to public consultations in general. How does
a new toothpaste company get the attention of the population?
Clearly a toothpaste is a toothpaste is a toothpaste!
It cannot be by placing an invitation to a consultation meeting
in a small box on page 30 of a newspaper; or indicating that
if you wish to get the documents you have to come in and read
it (when the Internet exists); or that you have two weeks
after the public notice to provide comments.
Public education
The first stage would be to seek to use a range of communication
media to persuade the public they should pay attention to
the trade negotiation issue. This should be linked to some
method of assessing the extent to which the public is aware
of the issue before and after a communication blitz.
Debate alternatives
A second stage would be to provide opportunities for alternative
perspectives to be articulated without any clear preference
expressed by the decision-makers since, it is not their decision
to make independent of the people who they are representing.
Draft decision
Having had the benefit of views expressed on alternatives
it is the responsibility of the decision-makers to indicate,
with due justification, the alternative that they consider
to be in the best interest of the public. The latter ought
then to have an opportunity to comment and react.
At the end of the day there is hardly likely to be a decision
as large as that involving trade negotiation in which some
people are not likely to end up disaffected.
If it is done properly and fully such people should be in
the minority. Moreover, in so far as such people may actually
end up on the losing end, compensatory policies should be
put in place as far as is possible to ameliorate their pain.
Takes years
Trade negotiations take years of discussions before they are
given effect. There is, therefore, ample room for the above
suggested methodology to be applied.
The Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European
Union has been under negotiations for several years now, for
example. Yet, it is only at this 99th hour that an alert and
alarm has been sounded by those who are learning of details
now. This is not good enough.
In my own view we should seek a deferral of at least one year
before signing the EPA. Within this time there should be an
attempt to undertake a version of the approach proposed above.
Place to begin
The place to begin is not with the EPA but with the overall
framework of trade negotiations under the rubric of the World
Trade Organisation. The reason is simple. All non-WTO trade
negotiations are subject to its over-arching framework.
In the language used: all other trade negotiations have to
be ‘WTO-compatible.” As I have asked in an early
paper on the EPA, however, is the WTO compatible with sustainable
development in the Caribbean and other regions of the world?
Until we answer this question we already are negotiating with
our hands tied behind our backs.
Next week: My own key imperatives
for trade negotiations
