Dear Editor,
Mr Emile Mervin’s letter which was published in the Kaieteur News on December 25, 2008, is a welcome and instructive intervention in the renewed public debate on the issue of shared governance in Guyana. Mervin raised many important points that should not be ignored.
I agree with Mervin’s contention that any move to shared governance that does not have the support of the masses is a retrogressive step. For me, the people’s support for shared governance is of paramount importance if it is to succeed as an effective political instrument to unite the nation and allow for the full realization of the country’s economic and social potential.
Unlike Mervin who questions whether the masses will give their support to a mainly PPP/C-PNCR shared governance deal, my political judgment is that both the African and Indian masses would, in the absence of a better solution, albeit reluctantly, give the leaders of their respective parties the benefit of the doubt. People in Guyana are becoming burnt out by the country’s protracted political and economic crisis. I wish to make it very clear that what I have just enunciated should not be construed as an argument in support of a PPP/C-PNCR bilateral agreement that excludes the other political forces and stakeholders in the country from participating in a shared governance arrangement, since that approach will also exclude the participation of the indigenous people, the rightful owners of the country.
A national referendum to allow the people to say whether they support a PPP/C-PNCR or another form of shared governance has my full, unreserved support since this will be the best democratic way to allow for the masses’ involvement and ownership of the process. We should not underestimate the transformational effects of such a political exercise – Guyana will never be the same politically. Imagine this scenario: both the PPP/C and the PNCR, jointly and/or separately, campaigning throughout the county for the same political solution. On the other hand if the two major parties stick to their present public postures of the PNCR for shared governance and the PPP/C opposed to its implementation, and their supporters vote for the party position it will underscore the need for a political solution and add greater urgency for a resolution of the problem.
I do not share the concern that in a shared-governance solution there will be no political opposition. Whether the arrangement is one, which is brokered in a bilateral agreement between the PPP/C and the PNCR that is sanctioned by the people voting in a country-wide referendum or, is one, the tenets of which flowed out of wide ranging discussions between all stakeholders, it will not prevent those forces in the country − political or civic − who are not in the government, from constituting the opposition, if they so chose. I strongly believe that in a new dispensation which ushers in shared governance as the way forward, the country’s constitutional arrangements will ensure representation in the national parliament based on votes received. A party or parties that failed to secure the requisite votes for inclusion in the government will constitute the parliamentary opposition.
In agreeing with the “proponents of shared governance” that ethnic voting is a problem and it is used to justify calls for changes in the political system to one of shared governance, Mervin went on to suggest that “had the PPP not gotten into power and began governing like as though it was elected to dictate… shared governance would be the least of the concerns of the proponents for a shared governance solution.” Mr Mervin may be right in relation to some proponents of shared governance, but not all. Many of us have called for that solution even when the PNC was in power. More importantly, many organizations including the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) and the Guyana Trade Union Congress (GTUC) made calls for shared governance long before the PPP/C’s return to office.
Shared governance should not be treated as a trivial matter or the cry of the opposition simply for a share of power. Instead, it should be seen as a serious attempt to address the failure for more than 50 years of our political system to unite and reconcile the people of this nation.
Guyana is today a nation at a historic crossroads where the political system enshrined in the constitution has proven to be inadequate to deal with the challenges of national development that are rooted both in the past and the present. I very often ask the question − how could our present winner-take-all political system give justice to the dreams and aspirations of our Indigenous People? As long as they remain outside of the stream of political power and for as long as they are denied real control over the resources on their lands, this important 12% of our population will continue to be pawns in the political chess game. These anomalies can and will only be addressed through the implementation of a political system that dignifies them as a people.
For me, shared governance is also not simply a matter for the PPP/C and PNCR as major political parties to indulge in political semantics. More importantly, it has to do with the real concerns of ethnic communities that are locked in political and economic competition as a result of colonial exploitation and oppression. Resolution of these contradictions must I believe, be of paramount importance if Guyana is to emerge and survive as a modern and progress country.
Finally, while I agree with Mr Emile Mervin on the need for educating the masses against the problems that are inherent with racial voting and the need for a political party/movement which has the confidence of the multi-racial masses of Guyana, the reality is that this will not happen in the short or medium term. Constitutional reform to bring about shared governance is a vital tool in the political education of Guyanese for meaningful change.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
What Guyana has right now is “Inclusive Governance”
But all those so called opposition refused to see it that way so they are misleading their supporters…
Words that are favourites with politicians.
1. Shared… good meaning until a taste for power is acquired.
2. Paramount…. good when it refers to the importance of quality of life for the masses, then it becomes the best thing for the party with the most votes.
3. Unite…. A pipe dream that will not occur in this lifetime or the next generation’s lifetime.
4. I will not comment on REFERENDUM…
What should take FRONT SEAT is constitutional reform. Bring back independence of PS. Cut out political patronage. Sack non-performers…. I can go on forever but I will stop here for others to pick up…
Change the darn constitution and let’s have a system where ALL politicians are ELECTED as individuals by the people and for the people and not APPOINTED as a party member. This will ensure that those non-performing, corrupt SOBs can be kicked out. Let the chips fall where they may!!!!
Indeed a referendum should be put to the people to see whether they are in favor of shared governance or not, and should not be left at the whims of the PNC via strong arm tactics. In addition a remodeling and revamping of the local government systems needs to be considered. The people are at the mercies of uncaring politicians, and it is time their needs are given consideration! The people should have the power to weed out incompetent public servants through regular ballots. For a long time time now Guyana has been inundated with inefficient and incompetent individuals in position of power, that provides services to the public, and this needs to be addressed. So shared governance is not the answer to the people concerns right now. The people want power from the grass root and NOT more power to the politicians!
Reading these letters always give me cause to pause.In one of my previous posting on these same letter pages I argued that it is the onus on the opposition to maintain its relevance to the public.Make no mistake,I am not a fan of the PPP or the government or even the opposition for that matter but I sure can call a spade when I see one.Cheddi Jagan maintained relevance in Guyana’s politics while he was in opposition and for that he should be admired.He campaigned in and contested every election,travelled to every corner of the world,had a few doors slamed in his face,was arrested a few times until he got the USA and one Jimmy Carter to listen and act.Walter Rodney took his issues to the world and mobilsed masses at home until he met his demise.Burnham took Guyana’s concerns,as he saw them,wherever he had to so that Guyana could be respected around the world.(I doubt Barbados would have treated Guyanese the way they currently do if he were alive).Hoyte had the courage and conviction to reject the socialist ideology.
While each of these gentlemen had different views about Guyana’s future and its politics they had one thing in common:They stood for something and pursued it relentlessly,sometimes to the bitter end.Corbin,Trotman et al stand for nothing and even if they did stand for something they lack the conviction to believe in a cause and the “know how” to get people to join them.
Let’s stop all this “intellectual talk” about shared governance and apply more common sense.Let’s find out what the opposition believe in and how they plan to pursue it.In a previous posting,I said that if the PPP loses 14,000-20,000 votes they will lose the election,hence no longer the ruling party.Getting 4% of an electorate to switch their vote while holding your base would be a welcome starting point for most oppositions around the world.The opposition needs to see the glass as half-full rather than half empty. Pessimist never make good leaders and that is the problem with Corbin,Trotman,their letter writing advocates et al.
Just my thought.
GJones you are so right on target. Guyana does not have politicians with the level of maturity, vision and grit to deal with power-sharing and for Corbin to push for that suggests to me that he’s a FAILURE!! He will NEVER get my vote!!!
Load of hot air
Shared government is not the answer to Guyana problems. The only benefit of shared government is the further division of the Guyanese people. People that advocate for shared governance is simple selling Guyanese short. Yes we have ethnic voting, and both parties are guilty of race base politics. When my fellow Guyanese see that their is a genuine leader and a party that is not race base I am sure they will support such a party. However, I think our present constitution is an impediment to political reform. We need to overhaul the entire governance structure not by sharing power but by creating a political system similar to the US where we have elected politicians and not politicians selected by the winning party. We need politicians who are accountable to the electorate and not vice versa. The leader of AFC in his column the other days has some good idea.
share what? Remember the city council? they were trying to share governance there, when the PPP turn came to govern the city of GT what happened? If they can’t share a city u think they will be able to share govern the country?
I do not know where you got your name from. Certainly not Guyana. However,constitutional reform to bring about shared government? Since when? If you cannot win an election,you do not govern. You are not wanted. And paramouncy.I heard that word among others.It raised eyebrows of a bad era in Guyana.The paramouncy of the party, The Sophia Declaration of zero growth,the Tanzanian Arusha Accords to nothing.
that is not the answer
Sherwood Lowe, PNC/R MP, was one of the initial proponents of the discussion on shared governance. Haven’t heard from him recently. Any reason?