The phrases ‘shared’ governance’ and ‘winner-take-all’ were introduced into Guyana’s political lexicon in the mid 1970s by the ever-resourceful Cheddi Jagan. At that time the PNC had given itself a two-thirds majority of votes and seats in the National Assembly at the 1973 general elections. It placed the PPP on the backfoot by the nationalization of the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy, long advocated by the PPP. The PNC developed political relations with China, Cuba and the non-aligned movement thereby exerting political pressure against the PPP, which had been demanding these policies. With continuing Cold War pressures assuring US support for the PNC, and its major policies adopted by the PNC, the PPP was in despair of ever overcoming the obstacles to political office.
The PPP offered a significant political compromise. It proposed in its National Patriotic Front proposals that the government should have an executive president and a prime minister with substantive powers. The prime minister would come from the party obtaining the highest number of votes and he or she would not contest the position of president. Each party would be entitled to ministries in accordance with their popular support. The PPP expected to win the highest number of votes at free and fair elections. It, therefore, effectively conceded the presidency to the PNC in return for a majority of the cabinet.
No one has ever sought to review or revive this significant historical episode or to give the PPP of the 1970s the credit for understanding and acknowledging the deep divisions in our society that necessitated the kind of political solution that it then proposed. Now that roles are reversed in that the PPP has held political office for several decades, with one short interruption, opponents of the PPP argue for shared governance. Some point to the same deep divisions that have long existed, now complicated by the struggle for ethno-political dominance. Others point to the PPP’s racism and discrimination against African Guyanese. The arguments give no recognition to the decades of PNC’s rigged elections by which the electoral mandate of Indian Guyanese was usurped.
Shared governance and the end of the winner-take-all system are usually demanded by supporters or sympathisers of the party in opposition except for the PPP between 2015-2020. Once that party achieves political office it loses interest in such reforms. When the PPP gained political office in 1992, it abandoned its 1977 proposals or any notion of shared governance or a political solution. The PNC government was forced into discussions with the PPP in 1985 for a political solution when it was seeking economic aid from the socialist world. The talks ended when Desmond Hoyte succeeded Forbes Burnham in August of 1985. While in the late 1990s a group in the PNC openly proposed shared governance which was adopted in 2001 by PNC Leader, Desmond Hoyte, the APNU+AFC government of 2015-2020 failed to implement its shared governance proposals promised in its manifesto. Thus, notwithstanding the high-flown, theoretical and analytical rhetoric surrounding shared governance, it has a decidedly partisan flavour to it.
To advance the shared governance project, I now offer possible amendments to the Constitution to give effect to what it could potentially look like. Articles 101(1) and 103(2) show proposed amendments to give effect to shared governance in bold print.
101(1) The President shall appoint an elected member of the National Assembly, who has been named as the presidential candidate of the List receiving the second largest number of votes at the elections, to be the Prime Minister of Guyana.
Provided that if there is no such elected member, or if such elected member declines by act or omission to accept appointment as Prime Minister of Guyana within two weeks, the President shall appoint any elected member of his choice.
103(2) Subject to the provisions of article 101(1) other Ministers shall be appointed by the President from among persons who are elected members of the National Assembly. Such other Ministers shall be limited in number to fifteen and shall be appointed from the Lists obtaining the highest and second highest number of votes in proportion to such votes after consultation between the President and Prime Minister.
The amendments proposed are: 1. The President shall appoint a Prime Minister from the party obtaining the second largest number of votes. 2. If the appointment is declined the President can appoint any elected member of his choice. 3. The President shall appoint 15 Ministers, meaning that the Cabinet shall be limited to 15 members, from the parties obtaining the highest and second highest number of votes, in proportion to the votes obtained, after consultation with the Prime Minister. 4. The power to appoint vice presidents is removed. 5. The power to appoint technocrats is removed.
Numerous questions, suggestions and criticisms are to be expected from the amendments proposed above. That is as it should be. Also, there would be numerous issues to be resolved in order to give effect to the new regime of shared governance and ensure that it functions smoothly. Most or all of these matters cannot be easily or appropriately provided for by constitutional provisions. They are best dealt with by agreement between the parties.
(This column is reproduced with
permission from Ralph Ramkarran’s blog, www.conversationstree.gy)
