Guyana needs to heal quickly as daily we plunge into all types of immorality and divisiveness. 2011 has to be a year that brings fundamental change. This will not happen with the current constitution. Shared governance is the answer.
However, ‘shared governance’ is not the same as ‘Big Tent’ politics. The PPP can today make a strong argument it practises Big Tent politics. This is because in its ranks are Minister Nadir (The United Force) and Civic member Minister Ramsammy, if I correctly remember, was the leader of another political party years ago.
Shared governance and Big Tent politics are two fundamentally different ap-proaches and are opposites. Big Tent has already been tried and has failed miserably. Just judge Guyana’s daily and yearly decline. The Big Tent concept is couched in the idea that a combined opposition can defeat the PPP and then, having won, they would initiate constitutional reform for a ‘shared governance’ constitution. Hence, the Big Tent is about winning another racially divisive Westminster winner-take-all election with a number of public and political figures (sounds like PPP/Civic all over again) and then having the generosity to legally include the opposition after constitutional reform.
Of course, what happens between their victory and the time to undergo constitutional reform, is left to the imagination. So would be pre-emptive racial healing.
Shared governance, on the other hand, is about constitutional reform before any new elections. The new constitution would be racially and politically healing and be people driven and people oriented. For example, instead of a party list of names, each Member of Parliament would have to compete in constituency elections and would have to be resident in their community. Each MP would have to convince his or her constituency about their ability to serve them and their commitment to the needs of the people in the community.
Another key change, for example, is that the head of government would sit in Parliament and not be above the law or above the sanctions of a people-empowered Parliament. Shared governance is therefore about the rule of law and not the rule of man. Executive lawlessness and executive gangsterism would be prevented. The Big Tent approach currently used by the PPP/C has shown that Guyana is a country ruled by men and not by the rule of law.
The Big Tent group, even if it was to succeed in defeating the PPP, would not bring racial peace or economic development to Guyana. This is simply because the largest ethnic minority, Indians, would feel very insecure. Ravi Dev has written extensively on the Indian and African ethnic dilemmas in Guyana, and he is correct.
Shared governance is fundamentally different from Big Tent politics because it is about a government of national unity. This would include members of the PPP, PNC, AFC, other parliamentary parties, civil society and the all-important diaspora.
Guyanese who are interested in racial peace should reject the newly camouflaged Big Tent idea. It is based on the idea that only an Indian leading it will result in Indians voting for it. Will they vote for the Big Tent if the leader is African? Somehow, I don’t think so. Even the Big Tent group leaders are saying no to that idea. Is this any different than today? No.
President Burnham did not change the constitution, because it gave him god-like powers. President Cheddi Jagan did not change the constitution after he won, because it gave him god-like powers. This is even though he vigorously campaigned against it for 12 years prior to the 1992 elections – a dozen years of saying a constitution is bad, then adopting it after a victory. That was deception. President Janet Jagan did not change it. President Sam Hinds did not change it. President Desmond Hoyte did not change it. President Bharrat Jagdeo did not change it.
I do not trust the lesser mortals throwing their names in the current political leadership hat with any promise of constitutional change. We have been there 5 times before. Now we get a 6 for a 9 once again.
Guyana needs racial peace as a prerequisite for economic development and to move away from an economy characterized by deep poverty, violent crime, moral degeneracy and mind-boggling illiteracy. This will not happen with Big Tent politics.
Underlying the rejection of shared governance for Big Tent politics is the concept that the PPP is no good and should be in opposition. This is the same Big Tent politics that states the PNC is no good and should be in permanent opposition. This is short-sighted and wrong. There are many good people in the PPP as there are in other political parties. How can one speak of racial unity and healing, then deny Guyana the involvement of good PPP individuals who can significantly contribute to Guyana’s stability, growth and racial harmony?
Under shared governance, there will still be elections every 5 years. There are no free rides or back-door deals. Indian Guyanese should have the unadulterated freedom to vote for whomever they want, without being stigmatized.
It is the Big Tent Westminster constitution that is driving voting patterns. Guyanese of all races should reject this new con game and vote for the future of their children and of this country. Do not let politicians continue to divide us by still clinging to the racially divisive, anti-human rights, unaccountable Westminster/executive presidency constitution.
For peace, prosperity and to be a nation at peace with itself, all Guyanese should say no to another Westminster election in 2011. Let us take back our power from the politicians. Let us surge forward through a government of national unity. Let us heal. Let freedom ring. Let our children have a chance.
Yours faithfully,
Eric Phillips
