Dear Editor,
The coalition government has extended the olive branch to the PPP/C to participate in the proposed new governance structure – inclusive governance. As mentioned before in a previous letter the coalition government is a partnership, therefore if the PPP/C should accept the invitation to be a part of or participate in the government of national unity, it will then become a partner in or with the government. The APNU+AFC government has to be very clear and strategic in this engagement with the PPP/C. The manner in which the inclusive governance approach will be used to govern the entire country is a different matter to engaging a political party, in this case the opposition PPP/C. The big question here is, how will the coalition government engage the PPP/C? What process or processes would be used? In considering the how, both the APNU+AFC government and the opposition PPP/C should consider the following.
What are the principles and values upon which the coalition government is being built? What are the principles and values of the PPP/C political party? The reason why partnerships are established is because some partners cannot achieved the set goals and objectives without other partners. In this case, can the coalition government achieve its goals and objectives without the PPP/C? If the PPP/C decides to join the coalition government as a partner, what is the added value that the party brings to the government?
The United Nations defines partnerships as “a voluntary and collaborative agreement between various partners, in which all participants agree to work together to achieve a common purpose of undertaking a specific task and to share risks, responsibilities, resources, competencies and benefits.” Will the PPP/C work together with the coalition government to achieve the common goal of a united Guyana? Will the PPP/C be prepared to share the benefits and risk of the new government?
Can the PPP/C perform its role as an opposition party and yet participate in the coalition government or an inclusive governance structure to achieve a common goal? This brings me to the point of the extent or level of participation of the PPP/C in the coalition or the level of inclusivity for which the new government would engage the PPP/C.
Partnerships are of different types, these are: Regional/local alliance partnerships, policy partnerships, dispersed partnerships, temporary partnerships and consultative partnerships.
The regional/local alliance partnerships could be where the coalition government involves the PPP/C in the main sectors in all ten or some of the regions. Under this model of partnership, the PPP/C can be included and be engaged in the decision-making process.
Dispersed partnerships: This could focus on an agreement between the coalition government and the PPP/C to work together on some specific common areas which would not require the PPP/C to be necessarily engaged in the government on an ongoing basis. In this case the PPP/C can appoint sub-groups to work with the government to achieve specific tasks.
Temporary partnerships: This partnership structure is designed to be time-specific and therefore ends once the agreed programme of work is completed.
Consultative partnerships: In this case the government can consult with the PPP/C on certain matters. They could be involved in brainstorming for new ideas on policy, programmes and implementation.
Nonetheless, partnerships can sometimes be problematic and/or a conflict of interest , hence the need for a clear understanding as to how the coalition government and the PPP/C will engage each other and the level or levels of such engagements.
For example, The World Health Organization or the Pan American Health Organization (WHO and PAHO) may not partner with a tobacco company since there may be a conflict of interest. One cannot promote health and tobacco in the same breath. Likewise the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) may not partner with an alcohol company since there may be a conflict in promoting children’s rights and alcohol at the same time.
There is a saying that, ‘except two agree they can’t walk.’ The key question to be answered is, are the coalition government and the PPP/C in agreement on the direction that Guyana should go and how to get there? Or rather, can they agree on the general direction and processes? Judging from the tone of the campaign, the APNU+AFC and the PPP/C were at almost extreme ends of the spectrum at times.
Since everything we do comes either out of the emotion of love or fear, in my assessment a significant portion of the PPP/C campaign was focused more on the emotion of fear while the APNU+AFC campaign was more on the emotion of love. The core message of the coalition government is about national unity. If the PPP/C is to become a partner with the coalition, it would have to adjust its core message to one of a united Guyana in order for there to be synergies between the two parties.
Another point for the PPP/C as an opposition and a possible partner in the coalition is that it has to put a greater value on change. Life is about perspective; my perspective based on the outcome of the May 11 elections is that the electorate did not say to the PPP/C party that it does not want the party to govern the country, rather the electorate indicated that it wants a government of national unity.
My advice to the PPP/C, therefore, is to transform the party into an opposition of national unity. By doing this, the PPP/C will position itself strategically as a government in waiting and as a pressure group with relevance by projecting the party’s new vision for a united Guyana and identifying, highlighting and proposing solutions for filling the gaps in governance of the new government.
Yours faithfully,
Audreyanna Thomas
