“But if we can all agree on the need for a new social contract and a shared vision of development, based on consensus, inclusiveness and buy-in, perhaps we will be more optimistic about the future and be able to face whatever changes lie in wait with greater confidence.” This final sentence in your editorial, ‘Some basic principles’ (SN, November 27) truly epitomises our perennial cry for hope in a hopeless situation. Speaking on ‘The Relevance of Social Partnership’ in 1998, I said: “… the events which took place in the aftermath of the 1997 general elections, have, in the minds of some people, made such a partnership an appropriate tool for gaining social consensus. In my view, we should be cautious in making such demands of this mechanism.” I still believe this to be the case and have argued in these columns that the structural nature of Guyanese society makes the operationalisation of the kind of “social partnership” your editorial advocated almost impossible. Yet, your appeal was sufficiently powerful to make one realise that we are at a stage when we need to be more practical about what could be done now to make the creation of a “shared vision” a reality.
Before proceeding further, let me make a few introductory points, some pre-emptively. I argued in 2002 that “normal politics” and political competition did not exist in Guyana in any meaningful sense and must be created if we are to progress (‘Did make submissions …’ SN, 18.6.09). Secondly, I believe that the best way forward at this stage is by way of electoral politics, but governments rarely voluntarily make the required changes and the present government is not prepared to do so. Indeed, the PPP/C will not be proportionately disadvantaged by what is proposed here and therefore has little incentive to become involved in the process at this initial stage. As such, thirdly, it is usually left to the opposition to articulate an approach that would extricate countries from this kind of dilemma. However, it must be said that, although it has consistently accused the government of being visionless, our opposition is yet to project a viable vision of change. Finally, the following suggestion focuses upon the 2011 elections and is based upon a belief that all opposition parties in parliament who are committed to fundamentally restructuring our politics, realise that the business as usual approach (individual party mobilisation for the 2011 elections) is unlikely to lead to governmental change and are prepared to cooperate with each other.
ACTION FRAMEWORK: 2011 ELECTIONS
For ease of reading and in the interest of space, this presentation is in a bullet point format, but each point could be expanded and over the coming months I will deal in more detail with those I consider the most important.
Introductory assumptions
Guyana will not optimise its resources with the current governance mechanism.
Given the current demographics, there is a possibility of defeating the PPP/C in the 2011 election but only if the opposition unite as a single electoral force.
The opposition is committed to immediate constitutional change to deal with the structural difficulties alluded to above.
Suggested elements for total mobilisation
Total, focused, mobilisation requires not only a united opposition but also a mobilisation tool that can ignite public imagination and broaden the opposition support base.
As such, the opposition should commit that if it wins the elections it will rule as a joint opposition for about two years (not the constitutionally allowed five) for the specific purpose of making the required constitutional changes and implementing a truth and reconciliation process that focuses on compensation rather than retribution.
This would allow persons who, while recognising the need for change, are not supporters of the opposition but will consider supporting it for a specific purpose.
The constitutional changes must seek to offer proportional and robust guarantees to stakeholders, ie ethnic groups, business, labour and civil society sectors.
The opposition must be prepared to compromise and present the most credible and respectable lead candidates to the electorate.
The opposition should seek the support of the international community in underwriting its commitment to the dual purpose and a shorter term.
Basics of an interim government
The opposition should commit that if it wins the 2011 elections, the basic configuration of the ‘interim government’ will be as follows.
Presidency shared (one year each) by nominees of the PNC and AFC with the GAP/ROAR having the prime ministership throughout.
Ministerial and other political posts will be shared in current representative proportions, but a percentage (twenty) will be allocated to the business, labour and civil society sectors.
A similar proportionality will be established at other relevant government institutions.
The ‘interim government’ will immediately establish constitutional and truth and reconciliation commissions, which will include the Guyanese diaspora and international observers.
Some possible elements of an inclusive constitution
Elections will be based on a proportionally broader constituency system that will give ordinary people (as opposed to political parties) greater control over their lives.
State resources will be proportionately allocated for election purposes and there will be full disclosure of party funds.
The president must gain at least 51% of votes (after a run-off election if necessary).
As in the US system, ministers of government will not be members of parliament and for at least the first 10 years the government must consist of representatives of the parties in parliament according to their representation in parliament: ie, a coalition government.
The president may dismiss any member of his government but must choose another representative of the same party.
Parliament and government must reflect the gender and ethnic composition of the country.
Parliament will be made independent of the executive in financial, administrative and personnel terms and chairpersons of standing parliamentary committees shall be full time with improved status.
In keeping with Caribbean practice, adequate provision will be made for the constituency activities of members of parliament.
Local government will be reformed with greater autonomy and authority and objective arrangements will be put in place for transferring resources to them.
The courts will be made truly independent and constitutional and legal reform properly institutionalised.
Rules to reform the security forces with an eye to efficiency, effectiveness and racial balance will be devised.
The rules governing the Guyana Elections Commission will be reformed and strengthened.
The entire media, including radio, will be open to private participation and given added protection.
Rules will be constructed to protect business persons from possible governmental interference.
Provision will be made for public sector pensions to be upgraded and backdated relative to what is provided for constitutional pensioners (where some pensions can be as much as 80% of the salaries of the current incumbents).
The University of Guyana will be insulated from political interference.
Conclusion
This presentation is simply an attempt to add some momentum and provide some suggestions that may lead to forward movement. The electorate will have to be presented with the broad details of what could be expected from a new, if shortened, dispensation. Lamenting the past and even the present is of little utility; unless positive action is taken now, the historical trajectory observed by Boyo Ramsaroop (‘The crime situation …’ SN, December 1) will continue.
Yours faithfully,
Henry B Jeffrey
