Dear Editor,
“Malaysia is a role model in power-sharing and countries like Iraq can learn from the concept adopted by the ruling party coalition National Front (BN). … The BN’s formula of power-sharing, which has guaranteed peace and stability in Malaysia for decades, could serve as useful experience for the Iraqi government, US Under-Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes said. Meanwhile, Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak, after meeting with Hughes, told reporters that Malaysia had been invited to participate in international dialogues to share its experience on the power-sharing concept.” ( Xinhua, 2005)
The above is in response to Hamley Case’s, ‘What does Malaysia have that Guyana does not?’ (SN, February 11). Mr Case has rightly observed that the existence of an enabling government, sound macro-economic policies, heavy emphasis on education and technology, the effective implementation of a strong and effective affirmative action plan, etc, have all contributed. However, even Guyana has attempted and could claim some success in implementing some of these policies. To my mind, the more substantive intervention in Malaysia was the implementation of a power-sharing arrangement via the New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1971-75 and the longer term 20-year Outline Perspective Plan (1970-90).
“The NEP spells out the twin objectives of socioeconomic development, for national unity, namely (a) the eradication of poverty irrespective of race, and (b) the restructuring of society to eliminate racial economic predominance.” (Stephen Chee 1974), ‘Malaysia and Singapore: The Political Economy of Multiracial Development’ Asian Survey, Vol. 14). Chee further claimed that, “The NEP is predicated on the belief that ‘once the racial imbalances (economic, social, cultura1 and psychological) are evened out, the basis for peaceful progress toward a united multiracial society will be established.” In 1973, the elite began experimenting with the shared governance arrangement and, “The resultant elite stability has contributed to political quiescence and interethnic peace, crucial ingredients for the implementation of the far-reaching socio-economic policies;” the results of which can be gleaned from the tables below.
WDI – *The reason for this increase and decrease, in relation to current prices, is because, apparently, the base year of 2000 has to be reflected both in the forward and backward years.
% GDP Growth
WDI – * Lower middle income countries
The Guyana government claims that growth was positive in 2006 and 2007 at 5.1% and 5.4% respectively. However, in the interest of comparison and to avoid unnecessary controversy (Ram & McRae noted the World Bank’s comment on “deliberately inaccurate budgeting.” SN, 11.2.10), I state both numbers.
I am not suggesting wholesale adoption of the Malaysian system nor am I saying that Malaysia does not still face enormous problems. Shared governance arrangements are not intended to remove the myriad problems poor countries face. Indeed, everywhere they have been tried, they have brought their own difficulties. Nonetheless, their introduction usually indicates that the political elite recognises the need to manage these kinds of societies in a different manner and is prepared to put in place the necessary constitutional/political frameworks for doing so. It would thus be most disingenuous to present the many difficulties still faced by Malaysian society as if they preclude us from learning anything from that country’s experience. We also need to note that while economic growth should not be conflated with social development, it is a necessary condition for it.
Therefore, I agree with Joey Jagan that shared governance “would solve a lot of our problems” (‘Shared governance would…’ SN, February 12) and believe it somewhat unfair to accuse him of presenting it as “a stand alone panacea.” (‘The people not the politicians should…’ SN, February 9). Where I take issue with Dr Jagan Jr is in his apparent condoning of the rumoured secret shared governance talks between the PPP and PNC. Whatever else they may be talking about (and they have a right to their private discourses), in my view complicated constitutional matters are best left open for the broadest possible discourse, for even where a more-or-less open process was attempted during the 2001 constitutional process, important errors (rules having to do with the appointment of the Chancellor of the Judiciary) were made and the issues that now plague us were hardly addressed.
In the above mentioned and subsequent missives, Mr Mervin made a few important points that need clarification. Firstly, he claimed, “The present constitutional arrangements are not inherently bad because, in most Caricom countries, almost the same constitutional concept obtains with no major problems.” The truth of the matter is that constitutions are neither good nor bad in themselves; they must be judged in their context. As indicated above, they are intended to provide political frameworks that will allow increasing prosperity. To the extent that they do not facilitate this, they are certainly useless and it is at best delusional to speak of Guyana having the best constitution in the world, the Caribbean or elsewhere!
Secondly, Mr. Mervin speaking “on behalf of all Guyanese who do not believe the PPP and PNC should ever engage in shared governance,” claimed that those parties’ “individual failure to be truly representative of the people they claim to represent and their failure to engage in genuine reforms aimed at making their parties more transparent and accountable to the nation, [mean that] shared governance would only be a recipe for more of what we are already witnessing.” I am not certain if by this statement Mr Mervin seeks to convince us that shared governance would not be sensible until the major political parties implement major internal reforms, or is saying that any shared governance arrangement should include other political parties. If the latter, I agree, although it should be noted that in Malaysia, as with most of these arrangements, it is the political elites that usually come to the primary agreement. However, if he is seeking to cure these parties of their oligarchic tendencies before the introduction of shared governance, he is blowing in the wind and Guyana cannot wait.
Finally, Mr Mervin stated that, “In Guyana, the problem is not among the people per se, but between the PPP and PNC” (‘The people not the politicians should decide …’ SN, February 9). This is truly to misunderstand the problem facing these kinds of bi-communal societies. John Stuart Mill wrote in 1861 about the difficulties of managing these kinds of societies and put simply, they are perennially compliant to ethnic political competition and manipulation. Get rid of the PPP and PNC today and maintain the present competitive political arrangement and before long both of them will be back with us in different and maybe more virulent guises. Let me try a somewhat more colloquial analogy: it does not matter how nice a mouse appears; you cannot leave it to watch the cheese and then blame it when the cheese is gone! In other words, it is in the nature of people once they become politicians to be ethnically competitive in bi-communal societies. Further, if the mouse has anything to do with putting in place arrangements that would thwart its efforts to get at the cheese, it will naturally oppose or dilute such measures.
Of course, we are not dealing with mice but with rational and moral human agents with specific social responsibilities, and this opens new difficulties and possibilities. Since we are dealing with responsible human agents, we tend, in these circumstances, to transfer our responsibility for safeguarding the cheese to the very people who have an inordinate interest in consuming it. What saves us is that being rational and moral, the political elites in these countries, later rather than sooner, come to realise that they and their peoples’ efforts at development are wasted (see tables) and they need to work together. Maybe this is what accounted for Joey Jagan’s ‘romanticised’ vision of great tranquility and developments if only politicians “would just love the people and our country more, and stop ‘jockeying’ for power less!”
Yours faithfully,
Henry B Jeffrey
