In November 2005, I was scheduled to make a statement in parliament but had to go to the hinterland. However, I thought that it was sufficiently important to be published as a letter in the Stabroek News since it appeared to me that the debate about the ongoing parliamentary reform and the increasing demand for more inclusive governance were being mistakenly conflated.
The English political essayist and critic Walter Bagot (1826-77) claimed that: “A parliament is nothing less than a big meeting of more or less idle people” and though an exaggeration, this view is normally the result of the kind of expectations we have of our Westminster-type parliamentary system. Thus, in the above letter, I argued that if the reforms then being proposed were implemented, our parliamentary system was poised for significant improvement but that we should not harbour over-ambitious expectations.
In the context of the demand for shared governance, I stated that “in my view, we will proceed with much more speed, if we all come to an agreement about the role and limits of the Westminster-type parliament. It is not, per se, a place for executive power-sharing of any sort. Indeed, such an attempt may well corrupt the very separation of powers that we seek. Those who are bent on executive power sharing must seek it differently.”
I still believe this to be the case and thus I contemplate the coming elections with no misconceptions of our limited parliamentary possibilities as they relate to the demand for shared governance and which I have consistently pointed out since I have been out of government and making more frequent public contributions.
In a nutshell, it has been and is my contention that all the talk of great developments is illusory and that this country will not progress as it should unless we introduce a form of societal management that gives all ethnic groups an acceptable level of comfort. A system in which one ethnic group dominates the policy-making and administrative structures will not work irrespective of how benevolent that group believes itself to be.
People do not want to live at the sufferance of others and as the coming elections is showing quite clearly, in a competitive, ethnically divided “democracy” politicians are sure to make and even pander to ethnic epithets. Indeed, I have argued that whether or not Guyana’s economy is growing at a decent pace (which it is not), the existing alienation and general dissatisfaction will continue and possibly increase. After all, it is perceived relative deprivation, not poverty, that is disillusioning and revolutionary. And in our kind of society these conditions will not cease until there is a generally perceived equitable distribution of social power.
For me then, the Westminster form of government is insufficient. It is not that our parliament is useless; it simply was not designed to deliver the kind of outcomes our society requires. The coming elections must be seen as an opportunity for political transformation: the constitution, the parliamentary and the electoral and general governance systems require revolutionary reforms.
If I stick with principle and vote on the issues, the above position constitutes the primary benchmark against which I must make a decision as to which party to support at the coming elections.
We know that if the PPP/C is returned to office it will be business as usual. Its presidential candidate has said that if elected he will work more closely with the stakeholders, but this is, as they say, “neither fish nor fowl.” It is too vague and we have heard and tried all of this before without any results. How many times, particularly when the regime was in difficulties, have the well-meaning stakeholders not traipsed to the Office of the President and made agreements that have proven quite meaningless?
The PPP/C’s more vocal African members/supporters have been claiming that it now has significant support across all ethnic groups.
However, the events during its attempted rally in Buxton a few weeks ago must have certainly given it food for thought and the Almighty cannot be invoked to placate what has clearly become an unjust situation!
The Alliance For Change holds a more progressive position than the PPP/C but it still falls short of my requirements. That party is committed to forming a government of national unity consisting of all the major political parties if it finds itself in a position to do so after the elections and to securing other constitutional changes that focus on the abolition of the executive presidency.
However, it still appears wedded to the Westminster-type parliamentary system and has made no commitment to constitutionally established shared governance, and these issues I believe form the crux of our problems.
Of the major parties, I am left with A Partnership for National Unity, which has adumbrated a position that comes closest to my demands. As I understand it, should APNU win office, it is “committed to the establishment of a Government of National Unity, which would have as its priority the …. Constitutional and institutional reforms necessary for the realisation of Shared Governance”, and the party proposes to do this “during the first two years of the first term of the Government of National Unity.”
Like the AFC, APNU also appears to believe that it is the presidential system rather than the head of state’s domination of the parliament that is the root of our problem. I have argued before that the presidency did not make Forbes Burnham a dictator; it was his parliamentary dictatorship which established the presidency.
Nonetheless, a constitutionalised shared governance arrangement can only take place after the most in-depth national debate and hopefully, the above organisational pre-emptions will be adequately discussed.
Given my political stand, I must support the APNU because of all the parties, it comes closest to my demand for radical constitutional change to introduce a more equitable and participative governance arrangement.
I also believe it has a good chance of, at least, preventing the PPP/C from gaining fifty percent of the votes cast if it is able to do three things: turn out every single traditional voter of its constituent parties, win significant quantities of Amerindian votes and last but by no means least, closely and strategically monitor every single polling place from the beginning to the very end of the election day process.
Contrary to what the controversial bishop had to say, the gods will be against us if we continue to vote for the PPP/C’s make-believe prosperity and not try something new.
