Whatever gave President Donald Ramotar the occasion, during his opening presentation to the 30th Congress of the PPP, to rail against shared governance, I believe the fact that he has done so requires some immediate attention and is a good enough reason for me again to defer my continued discourse on local government.
When considering a political speech, I first try to determine whether or not the observations contained in it relate to real or imaginary foes. It is surprising how often the creation and rhetorical destruction of marginally related fictional characters or “straw men” are contained in such presentations. In context, Mr. Ramotar’s attack on shared governance appears just such an occasion. Either that or the PPP and APNU, etc. are involved in some secret discourse,which could be much more dangerous to our freedoms.
The president’s focus appears fictional because firstly, the AFC has never shown any interest in shared governance as a negotiable pre-election arrangement. (Although, if my interpretation of its position is correct, it did say that if the occasion arises it will be prepared to work in a government of national unity.) Secondly, notwithstanding its stated commitment to shared governance, because I have detected a reluctance on the part of APNU to it, I have been one of those who have persistently pressed the party to gainsay what I perceive as an unfortunate parliamentarianism and to more vigorously mobilise for shared governance and/or associated constitutional change.
Since so far as I can see, no one appears to be immediately pressing for shared governance and our president has taken off on this track, we need to take note of at least one important element contained in the creation and destruction of “straw men.” The choice of which particular fictional character to create and destroy is never simply random. It always contains an important element of what we want to project and I proffer two reasons for Mr. Ramotar’s foray in this direction.
First of all, it fits in with the PPP/C mantra that all the opposition wants is to get to government by the backdoor in order to create more chaos and cheat the PPP/C and its supporters of their democratic rights. This makes it a good mobilisation tool, with strong historic roots linking back to the Jagans and Ms. Janet Jagan in particular.
Secondly, it contains the most important problem facing the regime in so far as parliamentary collaboration is concerned, i.e. the demand for full information and timely collaboration. In a proper democracy when you are not in control of an important lever of power, you need to collaborate with those that are in control. Contrary to what the president appears to suggest, collaboration does not mean mainly giving answers to questions. Cooperation demands a sustained relationship; collaboration not only on one issue or only on those issues of concern to one side but a relationship that touches the entire gamut of issues in relation to the specific institution. Furthermore, this collaboration has to be broad-based; dealing with the necessity for any action, the process for accomplishing the stated end and locational involvement in the monitoring of that goal.
It does not take much to see that this kind of relationship requires full information flow across the entire range of government issues, but herein lies personal and institutional jeopardy and thus the major obstacle to collaboration. However, make no mistake, if we are to speedily come to some sensible arrangement, the political elites will have to find a compromise to this information obstacle.
In passing let me repeat that I am not particularly enamoured of shared governance, for given my assessment of human nature, the vision of the PPP/C and APNU (and even possibly the AFC) collaborating in government does not fill me with much confidence or hope. Contrary to today’s persistent political acrimony, it has always been my contention that once these parties strike a deal and begin to sit around the table, the likelihood is that they will become chummy and do precisely what they like without our having any real political recourse.
Our own experience over some six decades and all that I have read suggests that if we are to make haste quickly some form of elite executive collaboration is vital. Notwithstanding all the ballyhoo about how developed we are and the pace at which we are going, after two decades of PPP/C rule, Guyana remains about the third poorest country in this hemisphere. I have argued before that contrary to what some would have us believe, this is not simply because the PPP/C has been incompetent or corrupt. In my view, it has been mainly due to our persistently disruptive political context, which expresses itself in differing ways at different times. The current warring parliamentary environment is the most recent of these dysfunctional ways.
Modest economic growth has recently returned, but as I have suggested in this column, that growth has been essentially the result of a period of political quiet, which occurred because the PPP was able to establish its political/ethnic dominance. The growth then had a significant economic and political cost for some groups and is therefore not sustainable in that further disruptions are unavoidable unless we put in place sensible consensual institutions. In my view then, some form of shared governance is not an option; it is a necessity if we are to progress in a timely fashion.
I doubt that the PPP and the opposition could be in any serious discourse about shared governance and that the former would take such a negative position at its congress if there was a possibility that it would have to return to that very body and ask it to endorse an approach the leadership had so publicly denounced. But one never knows; if such a discussion was in progress this might have been the PPP way of ditching it. Or some could believe that this kind of public critique might provide the party with greater leverage in the negotiations. Be that as it may, given the dangers – some of which I have outlined above – that can be associated with a shared governance regime, such a discussion should not take place in secret.
No one party can properly manage this country in a fashion that will appear equitable to its various ethnic communities. But shared governance must not mean simply the parties agreeing to share executive power based upon some arithmetic formula, which may subject us to a dictatorship such as we have not seen before. When the eventuality of share governance arises, we must insist that proper checks and balances are constitutionally constructed in an open and transparent manner.
