The District Commissioner System in British Guiana*
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1099-162X.1965.tb00653.x |
| Author | G. H. Grant |
| Date | 01 October 1965 |
| Published date | 01 October 1965 |
The
District
Commissioner
System
in
British Guiana'
by C. H.
GRANT
I.
I:-;TRODUCTIO:-l
WITHIN
five years, 1950-1954, two visiting constitutional
COmnllSSIOnS
found
respectively
that
the system of
rural
local government in British
Guiana
was
all right
and
all wrong.
The
Waddington Commission,' the first
of
them,
found the system to be playing an
important
part
in the affairs of the country-
The
Robertson Commission- of 1954 in contradicting
'the
impression
made
upon
the
Waddington
Commission by the system of local government
did
not
think
that
local government bodies
play
an
important
part
in the affairs
of
British
Guiana',
and
were
'not
convinced
that
in local affairs the village
and
country
district councils were
popular
or influential amongst the people',"
The
first reaction to these conflicting opinions is one
of
surprise.
The
same
system of local government seemed good
and
bad
to informed observers.
The
surprise is startling when it is observed
that
these two distinct value judgements
were based on the same criteria
of
local government, 'efficiency'
and
'demo-
cracy'. For the two Commissions seem agreed
that
the purpose of local govern-
ment
was not only to get things done effectively in terms
of
an
agreed standard,
but
also to be the training
ground
for responsible leaders
at
the national level.
Local government does not, however,
operate
in a vacuum,
and
the conflict
of opinions becomes less surprising
when
it is remembered
that
the two con-
stitutional commissions
had
different
terms
of
reference,
and
carried
out
their
investigations in different political conditions.
The
Waddington Commission was
appointed
in 1949 to review the franchise
and
the composition
of
the Legislature
and
of
the Executive Council
and
other
related matters,
and
to
make
reconunendations for reform. Substantial changes
were
made
in the constitution including
the
introduction of a ministerial
system of government
and
provision for elected representatives to
playa
greater
part
in the
running
of the government.
In
making
these changes the Com-
mission stated
that
'local government, as it is practised in British
Guiana
is
particularly well
adapted
to serve as atraining
ground
for future participation
in the
central
legislature'.'
The
appointment
of the Robertson Commission in 1954 was on the other
hand
the direct outcome
of
the suspension of the Waddington constitution in
October, 1953.
In
its
attempt
to justify the suspension
and
to
attack
as far as
possible the grounds on which the
Waddington
Commission
had
recommended
the 'liberal' constitution, the Commission condemned
outright
the system of
local government.
'The
whole scope
of
local government', the Commission
wrote,
'appears
to be very limited'i-
One
of
the
consequences of this dismal
report
was the
appointment
of
Dr. A. H.
Mr. C. H.
Grant,
M.A., is a Resident
Tutor
in the Institute of Public Education, University
of
Ghana.
He
is taking up a Research Fellowship
at
the Institute of Social
and
Economic
Research, University of the West Indies, this
month
(October, 1965).
*
Reprinted
from the Journal
of
Commonwealth
Political
Studies
Vol.
III,
No. I(March, 1965).
by permission of the author, the Editor
and
the Publishers, Leicester University Press.
1British
Guiana
Constitutional
Commission
1950-51.
Report
and
Despatch
from the
Secretary
of State
for the
Colonies,
6.10.51, Col. No. 280.
2Cmd. 9274 (1954), British
Guiana
Constitutional
Commission
1954
Report.
3/bid
..
21.
fCol. No. 280, 16. 5Cmd. 9274, 21.
244
DISTRICT
COMMISSIONER
SYSTEM
245
Marshall in 1954 to
'enquire
and
report
on all aspects
of
local
government
in
both the
rural
and
urban
areas
of the colony
and
to
make
such
recommendations
for reform as
may
be
practicable
and
desirable'." Dr. Marshall's
principal
recommendations included the re-organisation of areas, the provision
of
more
adequate
finance for local authorities,
and
the
introduction
of
universal
adult
ｾｵｦｔｲ｡ｧ･
if this was
maintained
at the
national
level.
The
entire
coastlands,
Including
the
unorganised
areas
and
the
privately
owned
sugar
estates, were
t? he
placed
within
the
jurisdiction
of
local authorities. He
recommended
a
Single tier system
of
local
government
with
the coastlands parceIled
out
in
not
lllore
than
eighteen
authorities to be called
Rural
District Councils.
With
regard to finance, there
were
to he new sources
of
revenue.
The
proceeds
of
minor duties,
such
as cycle ane! shop-licences, were to he collected by,
and
transferred to, local authorities.
For
the first time,
the
sugar
estates were to
Pay local rates
and
a levy
ofS240
per
ton
of
sugar.7Provision was also
made
for
the
central
government
to
pay
rates on
government
property
instead
of
giving
'administrative
grants'
to local authorities.
Dr.
Marshall
also
recommended
a
well conceived
grant
system which was to he equalising as well as
promotional.
The
main
theme
of
his
report
was, however, the
need
to decentralise the
system
of
local
government
in
the
rural
coastal areas,
and
for the
central
government
to transfer
many
of the local
government
functions to
more
viable
local authorities.
He
observed
that
the
central
government,
through
the Local
Government
Board, exercised too
much
control
over
the
local authorities.
The
Board controlled
not
only
the
raising
ofloans,
disposal
of
land,
and
other
major
lllatters,
but
also
had
the
general
power
to
annul
decisions of the local authorities.
lie
recommended
that
the Board be abolished
and
central
control be transferred
to the
Ministry
of
Local
Government.
On
the
assumption
that
there
would
be
a
network
of large, viable, local
government
uni ts,
Dr.
Marshall
further
recom-
mended
that
the
power
and
duties
of
local authorities should be increased. Like
the two previous Commissions,
Dr.
Marshall
seemed also to
have
based his
case for the devolution of
authority
on
both
the
'democratic'
and
the 'efficiency'
arguments
for local
govenunent:
"I
hope
that
local authorities organised on the
general
lines I
have
des-
cribed
will
provide
effective, well
conducted,
smooth
running
local machines,
able
to do
the
work
better
and
more
cheaply
than
could
direct
agents
of
the
central
government.
Better because local authorities
run
services
demo-
cratically
(a local
government
servant
is
more
vividly
aware
of
his political
accountability
than
a
central
government
servant, whose responsibility is
more
remote;
alocal
government
servant
has his
master
on his doorstep).
More
cheaply
because local
authorities
are
multi-purpose
authorities
who
can
carry
out
a
number
of services
with
asingle
administrative
organisation."!
These
arguments
inevitably led Dr.
Marshall
to consider
the
position
of
the
District Commissioners
within
the
local
government
framework in
the
rural
coastal areas.
He
observed
"that
there is a feeling in British
Guiana
as elsewhere
that
Government
through
District Commissioners, excellent
though
it
may
be
in
many
ways, is
not
in keeping
with
the
ideals of a
democratic
state
...
".9
In
a
Chapter
devoted
to
'The
Future
of
District Commissioners', he
drew
attention
6A. H. Marshall,
Report
onLocal
Gooernment
inBritish
Guiana
(Georgetown, 1955). v, Dr. Marshall
was the
City
Treasurer
of Coventry
and
had
in 1949 reported to the
Sudan
Govcrnrnent on
Local
Government
in
that
country.
7$4.Bo B.W.I. is equivalent to
£1
sterling,
8Marshall
Report
22.
9Ibid., 35.
To continue reading
Request your trial