Dear Editor,

Former PPP/Civic cabinet minister, Dr Henry Jeffrey’s letter, ‘The many difficulties faced by Malaysia do not preclude us from learning from its experience,’ (SN, February 19), though informative, failed to justify why Guyana is an ideal candidate for the shared governance concept. If Dr Jeffrey had only ventured a synopsis of the history of Malaysia and the circumstances that gave rise to the need for shared governance there, he would have seen a vast difference in the circumstances being used as a pretext for Guyana experimenting with shared governance.

Anyone with Internet access can Google ‘Malaysia’ and read up on that country’s history to learn it was divided into separate colonies and then separate kingdoms, becoming a union in 1946 before being reorganized into a federation in 1948. Further reading says that on September 16, 1963, Singapore, Sarawak, British North Borneo and the Federation of Malaya merged to become Malaysia, but Singapore was eventually expelled in 1965 after early merger tensions triggered armed conflict with Indonesia.

With the foregoing greatly condensed to show the myriad divisions and problems that existed without sacrificing/compromising known facts, the history and circumstances in Malaysia could well explain why shared governance might have been given a try there, but when we consider the history and current circumstances in Guyana, there is no comparably compelling basis for shared governance. The only division we have in Guyana is the politically-inspired ethnic exploitation of Indians by the PPP and blacks by the PNC at election time. Once the ballots are cast, the two parties resort to doing their own thing to remain politically relevant, while the two major ethnic groups resort to doing their own thing – not fighting or killing each other – to survive until the next election cycle.

We need to be truthful and acknowledge that, except for the attacks on innocent Indians by demented criminal elements, there is no real inter-racial violence between Indians and blacks that demand their supposed representatives come together with a plan for unity and peace, thus leading to a balanced distribution of the benefits of socioeconomic development or political parity in the executive or legislative branches of government.

So any shared governance arrangement featuring the PPP and PNC will benefit only those two parties and not the people. Quite candidly, what has the PPP done for Indians in the last 17 years or what has the PNC done for blacks in the last 17 years? I am sure if we conduct a cursory analysis of the PPP and PNC’s performance in the last 17 years to determine whether the two should form a government in the interests of the people, we will be very hard pressed to find anything useful to make an argument for the two to engage in the concept.

It is not that I am absolutely against shared governance, but absent the cry for it on the ground and absent the truly representative nature of the PPP and PNC, I don’t see how it will work for the people with the two parties at the helm.

Besides, even Dr Jeffrey admitted that despite shared governance, Malaysia still faces problems, adding that “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.” This is a perfect point for me to rest my case, but then Dr Jeffrey had three responses to points I raised in response to Dr Joey Jagan on shared governance.

First, Dr Jeffrey tried to clarify my point about the effect of the present constitutional arrangements, but I don’t think he understood the context in which my point was made. Dr Joey was the one who wrote that the AFC cannot win under the present constitutional arrangements, and I simply reacted by noting that there is nothing so inherently wrong with the constitutional arrangements as to block the AFC from winning. If this were the case then the AFC shouldn’t have been launched in 2005 and contest the 2006 elections when it won five seats. Can the AFC win more seats? Yes! Can the AFC win it all? Yes! Will the AFC win it all? Time only will tell, because before 2006, no one foresaw a third party winning five or six parliamentary seats, so there is hope for change.

Second, Dr Jeffrey disagreed with my position that shared governance between the PPP and PNC should only be undertaken after the two parties have undergone genuine internal reforms. I am sticking to my position, because I will reiterate that if the two are not transparent and accountable now, they will not be when they come together. And Dr Jeffrey also seems unable or unwilling to accept that it is not merely about the ‘elites’ making the decision to set the shared government arrangements in motion; it is more about who the ‘elites’ are.

Can we afford to trust these same ‘elites’ who continue to mess up our country?  You give a mechanic your car to fix and he ends up with spare parts from the car, do you give him back your car to fix?  And is this what democracy is coming to in Guyana where the ‘elites’ and not the people decide how the country should be governed? What about a referendum?

Third, I am not going to sit in 2010 and debate what John Stuart Mill wrote in 1861 about problems in managing bi-communal societies, such as Guyana’s, but I will argue ‘til kingdom come’ that the problem in Guyana is not among the people, but among the politicians. If either Dr Cheddi Jagan (Sr) or Forbes Burnham could have provided a political framework in which the people felt as one and provided an economic framework in which the economy prospered and benefits trickled down to the man in the street, then it would have been difficult (perhaps impossible) to find most Guyanese talking about the PPP or PNC or Indians or blacks the way we are forced to today. You can’t expect to divide people along ethnic lines for votes and when problems evolve from your action, you cry out that it is difficult to manage a bi-communal society.

Before I close, let me repeat that there is no major problem among Guyana’s people of myriad ethnic backgrounds; the problem rests with the current crop of politicians who, much like their predecessors, rely on politically   divisive politics in order to remain relevant. And these are the very politicians who love themselves more than they do the people or the country, and will never accede to the request to stop ‘jockeying’ for power.

Finally, to Dr Joey, who has urged me to stop writing about Guyana politics, I will continue to disappoint him. And the AFC, which he so despises because it appears to be a stumbling block to his shared governance dream, is just another political party that sees what he and everyone else see: the PPP has failed and so there is a need for drastic and genuine change in Guyana’s politics. Who knows, maybe the AFC is also amenable to shared governance, but if it represents true change, then it can’t work with the PPP or PNC from the current position of the junior parliamentary opposition or else it will be steamrolled by the divisive and destructive politics of the PPP and PNC and change will continue elude us. It also seems weird that though Dr Joey shares the PNC’s shared governance position and defends the ‘Cheddi Jagan PPP,’ he is not in with the PPP or the PNC. Is he really a political outsider in Guyana politics and he doesn’t know it?

Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin