Dear Editor,
Your guest editorial “The Necessity for Power Sharing in Guyana” of 12 January 2008 was a powerful one. I happen to share many of the views expressed. Make no mistake. Guyana is on a trajectory that will take it deep into a black hole of misery and pain. We live in a country in which increasingly the winners take all. Your editorial illustrated this point masterfully. Close to 30% of our total population can be considered unequal. Inequality in society translates into instability in the economy raising chronic difficulties for economic development and business investment. Not only the pattern of poverty, but also ultimately of sustainable solutions, is structured by the offence of inequality.
Guyana is an ethnically heterogeneous (HE) country which means that no one ethnic group can claim a two-thirds majority of the total population. Worldwide re-search has established that homogeneous (HO) countries, where at least two-thirds of the population are of one ethnic, linguistic or religious group, show higher levels and pace of economic development. Not only are HO countries richer but they grow much faster than HE countries like Guyana.
The reasons why HE countries in various parts of the world fail to compete with HO ones are multiple and vary from case to case. Reasons range from economic mismanagement, wars, ethnic or religious conflict to inappropriate political systems. It is the latter obstacle to economic growth that concerns this writer most.
It is known that Guyana’s political system represses and rejects expressions of national interest based on ethnic difference. This is because our system is quite closed. It also explains why most government Ministers are of one ethnic group and one political persuasion. Exceptions to the rule often have to battle with the psychology of belonging and invariably toe the dominant ethno-political line. Thus Guyana has a psychically homogeneous group governing a heterogeneous population. This is a recipe for disaster as your editorial suggests and though lulled into a sense of false security no sane Guyanese should believe that ethno-political domination as perceived in Guyana at the moment can be sustained indefinitely. In April 1979 in Liberia, an ethnically HE country, a sudden increase in the price of rice from $22 to $30 per 100lb bag sent the country into a tailspin from which it has never recovered. No Liberian alive today can claim he or she did not lose some relative or property as a result of that $8 increase in the price of rice. I am not for one moment suggesting that what took place in Liberia can or will happen here, neither am I holding my breath that it will never occur in Guyana.
Marginalization is a perception as real as stupidity or beauty and people who consider themselves systemically marginalized cannot be pacified or bought over forever.
It is imperative as an HE country with all the shortcomings of heterogeneity that we dismantle the Westminster model in favour of Shared Governance or a Government of National Unity. By so doing all Guyanese will begin to feel they have a stake in this country and in its future.
I agree with your editorial that “there should be enshrined in our Constitution that the Cabinet should comprise ministers from all the parties which have representatives in Parliament” having obtained a minimum of 5 seats, say. However, I do not agree that, “by law, certain ministries should be reserved for the majority party and others for the minority.” I believe the Presidency should be reserved for the majority party but beyond that I prefer a system in which the majority party is allowed, primus inter pares, initial or first choice among a pre-determined number of ministries.
This procedure presupposes that the partners in government have worked out and signed a Shared Governance agreement encompassing, among other things, a policy platform based on a 10-year National Development Stra-tegy and Plan. It is this NDS/P that should dictate the numbers and types of Minis-tries required. For instance Guyana may soon need a Ministry of Petroleum, a Ministry for Economic Deve-lopment and a separate Ministry of Forests. There should be a pecking order by which parties can choose their ministry of preference. For instance, the party with the largest number of votes may choose the Ministry of Finance, while the party with the second largest number may choose the Ministry of Economic Development and the party third in line – the Ministry of Petroleum. This methodology preserves the primacy of the democratic principle and reduces gridlock and acrimonious debate early in the new governance arrangement.
Political stability is the main prerequisite of economic development. Our private sector recognizes this and says it at every opportunity. Political stability is what Foreign Direct Investors crave and look for in an emerging economy. Even major investors considered intrepid or daring look for an enabling political dispensation that will endure. Investors abhor Guyana’s 5-year ‘itch’ as the country approaches general elections and the historical winners and losers face off. With Shared Governance there will be no critical losers or triumphalist winners. Because of this, the country’s parties will settle quickly post elections and get on with the job of dealing with Guyana’s many problems. This responsible and mature approach to managing the nation’s affairs will lead to accelerated economic development and eventual prosperity for large numbers of Guyanese across ethnic, religious, social and political divides.
Yours faithfully,
F. Hamley Case
