Dear Editor,
I disagree with Mike Persaud that “we do not need power sharing” (SN, Aug 27, ’16). Given the historical racial division of our society, power sharing is about the only proven solution to address ethnic conflict. It may not be ideal to end ethnic politicking, but it is the best solution to address persistent problems relating to ethnically divided third world societies like Guyana. Power sharing has worked to reduce conflict in multiethnic developed nations like Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Northern Ireland, Israel, etc. Power sharing formulas also worked in several African countries to end ethnic wars and reduce tension. Why could it not be tried in Guyana to help build a harmonious society if not to reduce tension?
Power sharing in Suriname is not of the consociational type as described by Prof Arendt Lijphart. For more on consociationalism, peruse the writings of Baytoram Ramharack and Ravi Dev, both of whom have mastered the concept and are also leading advocates of power sharing in addressing the ethnic insecurity dilemma impacting Guyana.
Contrary to what Mr Persaud writes, Dr David Hinds has not used the term consociational power sharing in relation to Guyana. And also contrary to what he wrote, power sharing failed in Suriname in 1980 and during the ʼ90s not because of the defects of consociationalism but because of the failure of politicians (ethnic leaders, Henk Aron, in particular) to act like statesmen. They (Aron, specifically, the leader of the Africans or Creoles) did not honour agreements made with the leader of the Indians, Jaggernauth Lachman, leading to the Desi Bouterse military coup. Power sharing also failed in Fiji in the 1990s till 2007 for similar reasons ‒ the Black Fijian leader (Laisenia Qarase) refused to include Indians (47% of parliament) in the cabinet as required in the constitution, leading to the military toppling the regime.
Aron and Qarase both ended up permanently out of power over obstinacy about sharing power; had they shared power with the other ethnic groups, those countries may very well have been different today. Power sharing worked in several African countries and to some extent in Iraq and Afghanistan to reduce ethnic violence.
In more recent years, Surinamese politicians have learned from their mistakes on power sharing and have acted more maturely, honouring (written and unwritten) agreements leading to political stability, although the economy has been in a tailspin. Bouterse survived a full term and has been re-elected because he seems willing to share power.
One of the flaws of Lipjhart’s consociational theory is that he speaks of elites as representatives of their ethnic group or party, sharing power at the centre. But there is no guarantee that the elites will genuinely serve the interests of their constituents. In Lipjhart’s home country, Holland, and in other developed European states, the elites serve the interests of their ethnic group. But as experienced in Guyana since independence, except under the tenure of Cheddi and Janet Jagan, the ethnic elites hardly care about their supporters. Instead, the elites serve themselves.
Contrary to what Persaud pens, Guyana does not have power sharing. The PNC, as the representative of Africans, is not sharing power with the PPP, the representative of the Indians. The AFC is calling for such an arrangement, but the PPP is resisting saying the PNC is not serious about sharing power when it appoints Nagamootoo as its negotiator. An Indian cannot speak for the APNU (PNC) in much the same way that an African cannot speak for the PPP on ethnic power sharing. Persaud is right that the AFC was to be the representative arm of Indians in the coalition but has failed in this regard. The fact that the AFC has failed to advocate for Indians while in the government means there is no power sharing as no one is advocating for Indians while the PNC (and WPA) is advocating for Africans.
What Dr Ramharack and Mr Dev propose in addressing consociational flaws, is federalism as exists in the US, Canada, India, etc. I also support this concept of decentralization of power. The people are the source of all power in Lockean theory, and, therefore, the people should exercise all power. Let the people run affairs in their communities in relation to all matters and remove all domestic power from the ethnic elites.
To have a better understanding of power sharing and consociationalism, Mr Persaud should peruse the editorial of Aug 25 in the Guyana Times titled ‘Whither power sharing. Power sharing is when the representatives of the parties or ethnic groups agree to a fairly equitable share of cabinet posts and resources on behalf of their constituents; this is what I understand Prof Hinds means by power sharing. Regardless of which party wins the election, winner will not take all. The other parties (ethnic groups) will get their fair share based on the proportion of votes received – somewhat similar to the post-apartheid distribution of power in South Africa and as implemented in several West European countries.
Mr Persaud believes that issues appealing to (swing voters) will help to end ethnic politics. Guyana never really had swing voters, but the number of enlightened voters is increasing. Issues such as corruption, farm pricing, perceived racial discrimination, etc, that influenced cross party voting arose in 2011 and 2015 and Indians crossed over from the PPP to vote for the AFC which subsequently formed an alliance with the PNC to defeat the PPP. Since then the AFC and APNU have failed to honour their commitments to these voters. As noted by Mr Persaud, it is doubtful that Indian voters will trust AFC and APNU again. So this idea of swing voting is moot. The only remaining option is power sharing.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
