“[P]ublic arguments over policy often reflect the instinctive worldviews of the antagonists rather than honest dialogue to find the best possible solutions” (“What really happened in Bangladesh”, Foreign Affairs, July/August, 2014)
Nowhere is this clearer than in the present discourse about constitutional reform. But public discourse is central to our devising a better system of governance and for there to be national ownership of whatever is finally agreed.
Two weeks ago, this column made some suggestions for constitutional change, and hats off to those who have been criticizing and making alternative proposals. I will spend a couple of weeks considering some of the specific observations and recommendations.
But before doing so, I will briefly state my understanding of what should be the purpose and general direction of our present enterprise.
In my view, the overarching reason for constitutional reform is to create a political framework that we, as we are today, with all our faults and prejudices, believe to be equitable and workable.
Given the nature of our society and our constitutional history, our goal demands that we seek to establish national governance arrangements that are ethnically as inclusive as possible and that those arrangements are constructed to prevent governments from remaining in power for long periods of time.
As I view the situation, in trying to build a constitution we should attempt to cater for the basest human tendencies. Good people there undoubtedly are, but just as it would be considered reckless to allow anyone to manage your business without proper systems of accountability, our political institutions must contain sufficient checks and balances to stymie untoward tendencies.
I want first to comment on the contention by Mr. Ruel Johnson that “….we cannot speak about any democratic reforms or enhancements or modifications without speaking to the core issue that plagues us, that of our cultural differences, our perpetually reinforced othering of each other. Until Guyanese citizens can sit down at a table and speak honestly and openly about these divisions and about what is necessary to heal them, no system of government will work” (“We must start by talking to each other”, SN: 28/08/2014).
Generally, the primary purpose of the proposed reforms is not to end racism, ethnic mobilization or make the various racial groups like each other. Although I agree that it would be useful to our enterprise if it were possible, within some relatively short timeframe, for the various groups to get to understand and appreciate each other more than they already do. Indeed, such feelings would make our objective almost redundant. That said, it appears to me that any attempt to achieve these lofty goals must be rooted in equitability and fairness – the very conditions which inform the proposed reforms.
I believe that, as we culturally are now and notwithstanding our differences, our peoples have sufficient of a common understanding of the basic requirements for our attaining the collective good and are able to sit at the table and establish a workable political system that will allow us to make better use of our natural and human resources.
Look to, Belgium, Ireland, Malaysia, etc, as places where ethnic attachments are still very present, but where people have been able to find workable national political frameworks to foster development.
What they also teach is that, in an ethnic context, the masses tend to follow, and thus elite cooperation is crucial. The immediate question for all of us should be, what can we do to encourage and compel our political elites to take a more progressive course?
From my standpoint, and for reasons some of which have already been provided in the two previous columns, many of the proposals made by Mr. Charles Sugrim (“We should rewrite the constitution” SN: 02/09/2014) are sound, although I have a few disagreements. For example, I agree that we need to dramatically rewrite and change the way we are governed; we need more progressively designed constituencies; ministers should not be parliamentarians and that the head of state should be elected by over fifty percent of the votes cast. But I disagree with a titular head of state and more importantly, I believe that Mr. Sugrim’s most innovative proposal below is unworkable.
“My proposal for the reduction or elimination of racial voting will require that each political party must be composed of all ethnic groups within Guyana proportionate to the ethnic composition of the population. In other words, if the population is 40% Indian origin, 30% African origin, 20% mixed race and 10% Amerindian, then in order for any political party to contest an election it must have that composition in its membership.”
We should always try to express ethnic and gender balance in our social organizations. But quite apart from any human right violations having to do with our right to associate, it appears to me that the above formulation has the potential of handing over the PNCR to Indians and it does not take much to see that will not be acceptable.
Mr. Tacuma Ogunseye has been a longstanding political activist and supporter of shared governance. Much of what he had to say about both the intransigence of the government and ineptitude of the opposition and certain civil society organizations in relation to this matter, appears to me to be well-founded.
He takes the view that “the opposition leaders should take advantage of the public interest created by the (no-confidence) motion, bite the bullet … and begin a massive mobilisation of their supporters for constitutional reform before elections” (“There should be constitutional reform before elections”, SN: 30/08/2014).
Part of the opposition strategy is to persuade larger numbers of their core constituencies to go to the polls. Even if not successful in wining shared governance before the elections, the approach suggested by Mr. Ogunseye can help to fire the public imagination, thus helping to create the positive momentum such an approach requires.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
