An exercise in whitewashing?

The previous attempt at consultation in Tacarigua (one of two others) was, I gather, a fairly low-profile event and led many to wonder whether the Ministry of Social Development and Family Services and in particular its Disability Affairs Unit were trying to keep the whole affair a secret.

After all, when the first draft was sent last year to various stakeholders, many pointed out that the new policy document was merely a cutand- paste version of the old and there was no holistic approach to disability. What was perhaps most crucial was the lack of real implementation processes. This is still missing.

This last consultation was held at the Kampo Restaurant in Chaguanas on the second floor. According to one comment on Facebook, it was only after the Disability Unit was “bombarded with phone calls” that a full-page ad appeared in national papers, the day before the event.

Many would have had no access to the document before attending the meeting. According to Ria Mohammed- Davidson, attorney, who attended the previous consultation in Tacarigua, when “she requested a copy of the Revised Draft Policy in an effort to study its contents and provide meaningful feedback,” she received no response She was only provided “with a copy of the document at the event.” Given the length of this 41-page document and its complexity, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to begin to analyse or assess the implications of the various sections while at a public meeting, and to offer informed comment.

In such meetings, organisers often provide at least a summary of the contents to facilitate the attendees.

However, according to Mohammed- Davidson, while she was there no one made any “presentation on the content of the draft policy.” As a member of the disability reporting team who made significant suggestions on the first draft and pointed out its many flaws, she notes that “the revised draft does somewhat improve on the first policy.” However, at the consultation gathering, there was no indication given of any “significant changes or improvements made to the original policy in light of the comments provided by the disability community.” Many stakeholders spent a great deal of time over several days reading, analysing and commenting on the first draft. The suggestions were wide-ranging and manifold.

The question is then, for her, how did the “ministry treat with the comments which they solicited on the first draft policy, some of which were quite detailed and comprehensive?” The draft nonetheless begins by stating that “the views and opinions solicited from key stakeholders in 2016” have been incorporated.

According to Mohammed-Davidson, the document still “does not sufficiently embrace the tenor, breath and spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, particularly the guiding principle of disability as a human rights issue.” This, despite the fact that the preamble states that the revised draft policy “is based on the human rights model of disability.” Many wonder whether this series of “consultations” is only an attempt at appeasement, since nothing really has changed, despite the fact that we signed that convention two years ago. Having a new policy in place and able to say that the public has been consulted, takes the Government off the hook, now that the two-year reporting deadline is here. However, since this consultation may only be an exercise in whitewashing, I wonder whether the relevant bodies really want the public to know or say too much.

Mrs Mohammed-Davidson also notes that she did not see “any representatives from the Ministry of Education, Health, Transport, Housing, Culture or any other government department or ministry.” Yet, disability touches all areas of human concern and if there is to be real structural and meaningful change then the relevant ministries need to be consulted and indeed must be part of the whole process.

Perhaps those who make policy are not yet fully aware that people with disabilities are whole people.

The biggest need, then, would seem to be that the Disability Unit publicises this document, either through the Internet or in newspapers, so that all can read it, discuss it, analyse it and return to the drafters with their comments.

Members of the public will then ask for details of the implementation process. They will seek to know what ministry will implement the changes. They might also ask who will be the watchdogs and who will represent them in overseeing such implementation.

As it stands, the Consortium of Disability Organisations only received notification of this last consultation in the week that it was held. What then is CODO’s role and function as the g r o u p that purports to r e p r e - sent over 40 disa b i l i t y organisations?