Since gaining its independence from the Netherlands in 1975, the situation in Suriname has been somewhat of a political tennis match; bouncing between military rule and constitutional democracy. In its current state, Suriname’s government is a presidential system with parliamentary supervision. It is comprised of an Executive branch made up of a president, vice president, and Council of Ministers; a Legislative branch made up of a 51 member-elect National Assembly; and a Judicial branch made up of a Court of Justice (Suriname Country Profile, 2006 Economist Intelligence Unit). In addition, Suriname is divided into 10 administrative districts. Each of the districts is headed by a district commissioner who is appointed by the president.
It is widely known that governance in Suriname is suffering in many areas. Numerous (37 registered) political parties exist and are typically based on ethnicity. Made up of roughly eight different ethnic groups, this diversity is often the cause of poor government performance as each of the political parties has their own agenda influenced by cultural beliefs and practices. This ethnic fragmentation has made it difficult to come to agreement on important issues that affect the day to day operations of the country. In addition to ethnic diversity causing problems with governance, a weak constitution, corruption of officials, mismanagement of employees, and narcotics trafficking are contributing factors as well.
According to the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), “in recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that development progress and good governance — in a broad sense — are intimately related.” Because Suriname has suffered deficiencies in a number of aspects of governance, the economic and social development of the country have been adversely affected (IADB, Governance In Suriname). There is a high level of poverty in Suriname and these governmental shortcomings have caused the Surinamese to become skeptical of those in power and subsequently of each other making it difficult for economic as well as social development.
A good example of poor governance stifling economic development in Suriname is the natural resource endowment. The Surinamese government has entered into poorly negotiated contracts with private companies who extract most of its natural resources leaving Suriname depleted and unfairly compensated. A country with such a small population (around 450,000) and abundance of natural resources should have a much higher GDP, $2,307 per head (Suriname Country Profile, 2006 Economist Intelligence Unit). Another good example of poor governance having an adverse impact on Suriname is the narcotics trafficking situation. Many government officials, law enforcement officers, and customs agents are being corrupted by enticing incentives made by drug traffickers to “look the other way.” These incentives are usually financial and further increase the rift between the very wealthy and the very poor. As a result, citizens are left even more dubious about the legitimacy of their leaders and protectors.
More and more civic organizations are coming to the aid of Suriname and are working to improve these issues with poor governance in order to avoid hindering development. Private sector organizations, labor unions, and Non-Government Organizations are all reaching out to lend assistance. In a sense, they are trying to pick up where the government is falling short. IADB in particular is lending support to micro-enterprises, credit unions, agricultural groups, and small projects as a means to alleviate some of the poverty within Suriname’s very poor. Many of these organizations are intricately involved in Surinamese government and have proven to be very influential. Although such organizations are helping the situation, they are by no means a solution to the problems within the government. Suriname must take greater strides in addressing internal governmental issues if they want to pull themselves out of poverty. If they fail to do so, development will continue to progress at a snails pace.
It is widely known that governance in Suriname is suffering in many areas. Numerous (37 registered) political parties exist and are typically based on ethnicity. Made up of roughly eight different ethnic groups, this diversity is often the cause of poor government performance as each of the political parties has their own agenda influenced by cultural beliefs and practices. This ethnic fragmentation has made it difficult to come to agreement on important issues that affect the day to day operations of the country. In addition to ethnic diversity causing problems with governance, a weak constitution, corruption of officials, mismanagement of employees, and narcotics trafficking are contributing factors as well.
According to the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), “in recent years, it has become increasingly apparent that development progress and good governance — in a broad sense — are intimately related.” Because Suriname has suffered deficiencies in a number of aspects of governance, the economic and social development of the country have been adversely affected (IADB, Governance In Suriname). There is a high level of poverty in Suriname and these governmental shortcomings have caused the Surinamese to become skeptical of those in power and subsequently of each other making it difficult for economic as well as social development.
A good example of poor governance stifling economic development in Suriname is the natural resource endowment. The Surinamese government has entered into poorly negotiated contracts with private companies who extract most of its natural resources leaving Suriname depleted and unfairly compensated. A country with such a small population (around 450,000) and abundance of natural resources should have a much higher GDP, $2,307 per head (Suriname Country Profile, 2006 Economist Intelligence Unit). Another good example of poor governance having an adverse impact on Suriname is the narcotics trafficking situation. Many government officials, law enforcement officers, and customs agents are being corrupted by enticing incentives made by drug traffickers to “look the other way.” These incentives are usually financial and further increase the rift between the very wealthy and the very poor. As a result, citizens are left even more dubious about the legitimacy of their leaders and protectors.
More and more civic organizations are coming to the aid of Suriname and are working to improve these issues with poor governance in order to avoid hindering development. Private sector organizations, labor unions, and Non-Government Organizations are all reaching out to lend assistance. In a sense, they are trying to pick up where the government is falling short. IADB in particular is lending support to micro-enterprises, credit unions, agricultural groups, and small projects as a means to alleviate some of the poverty within Suriname’s very poor. Many of these organizations are intricately involved in Surinamese government and have proven to be very influential. Although such organizations are helping the situation, they are by no means a solution to the problems within the government. Suriname must take greater strides in addressing internal governmental issues if they want to pull themselves out of poverty. If they fail to do so, development will continue to progress at a snails pace.
No comments:
Post a Comment