- AFC, GAP-ROAR doubt climate is right
PNCR leader Robert Corbin has renewed the push for the adoption of a shared governance system, but doubts have surfaced about whether the climate is right.
Robert Corbin
In a national new year’s broadcast, Corbin said this year must mark “a decisive shift” towards genuine national unity through shared governance, calling it the start of the journey towards self-development. He added the government must strip itself of its pretence and its inward looking political posture and listen to the voices of the people. “I am once again calling for a genuine inclusiveness that embraces all stakeholders in our society in the process of building this nation,” he announced. “The prevailing exclusionary approach to governing Guyana will bring us nothing but disappointment and disaster.”
Stabroek News contacted Corbin, however, he was unable to talk owing to an injury. He promised, however, to answer questions about the party’s plans this week.
Everall Franklin
Despite President Bharrat Jagdeo’s pledge of an enhanced framework for political cooperation, there is agreement among the parliamentary opposition that the current system excludes any meaningful participation in governance. But at the same time, the AFC and GAP-ROAR are sceptical about power sharing and both say the fundamental shift has to begin to with participation at the local government level.
AFC leader Raphael Trotman says at the moment there is no platform for sustainable executive power sharing, saying there is a lack of respect and trust among the political actors. What is more, he thinks that any meaningful move in this direction needs to begin with a fundamental devolution of power, starting at the community level.
Raphael Trotman
“I don’t believe the climate exists for executive power sharing, short of forcing the PPP to do it,” Trotman explains. He warns that if the PPP “is brought to the table under duress” the process would not be sustainable. The recent events in Zimbabwe illustrate the point, as a deal for a unity government signed between President Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has yet to see any progress. According to Trotman it is clear that there is a lack of respect among the two parties and although the ZANU-PF signed it has no interest in any meaningful sharing of power. “So, if the climate is not right, it is not going to happen,” he observes.
Emphasising the need for a “transformation” in the organisation of the country’s system of governance, the AFC is advocating a bottom up approach that begins with empowering people at the level of villages and communities. Trotman says Village Councils and Neighbourhood Democratic Councils need to be reconstituted and given new levels of autonomy while Regional Democratic Councils need to be allowed to function with less interference from central government, including independent executive officers. He adds that there is also need for a proper constituency system to ensure a balance of greater representation with proper accountability. In this regard, he said the AFC will be pushing for change in the current party list system, in favour of one that would allow the people to directly elect representatives to the parliament to represent their constituency.
Although he awaits a detailed definition of the shared governance concept now being plugged, GAP-ROAR MP Everall Franklin believes that the lack of trust among the parties is guaranteed to shut the door on it. “Shared governance has to be based on trust,” he stresses, while noting the need for all players to emerge from the trappings of the past. He said that there is also paranoia among government representatives about even talking to the opposition because of the predominating feeling that “if you are not with me, you are against me.” In addition to a lack of trust among the parties, he says that there is mistrust even within the ranks of the two major parties. “If even within your own party, you have questions about your motives and people are unhappy, how can you convey the confidence to those [outside] that you could work together? I don’t think the present leadership conveys the confidence that this could work.”
But Franklin admits that the current system is far from truly democratic. He is critical of the government’s current approach in the parliament, saying that it continues to push through its legislative agenda without any regard for the feelings of anybody else simply because it has the majority. He likens participating in the house to participating in a “charade” at times, adding that no one has a monopoly on intelligence. Given the crisis created by the level of flooding experienced in coastal communities he expected government to involve all the stakeholders in a nationally coordinated response to help those people who have been affected. Instead, he says there has only been propagandising while blame is assigned to ‘opposition elements.’
Building trust cannot be left to the political parties, says Franklin, who thinks it is best suited to an active civil society, though he notes that civil society groups have also been beset by distrust. He is referring to the trade unions whose leadership he notes has been compromised by their political involvement. Like Trotman, he also believes that power sharing has to start at the local government level. He says, “If on the ground level we can work together to achieve it, it lays the foundation for it to happen at the highest level.” On this point, he laments the extended absence of local government elections, saying it has denied the people the opportunity of solving their own problems. “That is how true democracy is built.”
In 2002, the PNCR presented its original blueprint for shared governance at the invitation of the Social Partners civil society grouping. The proposal, developed by a committee headed by now ousted executive James McAllister, conceptualised a cabinet comprising all the major parties and the re-introduction of a non-executive head of state appointed from the party with the largest popular vote. The arrangement would have been placed under the supervision of the parliamentary committee on constitutional reform for constant review through its own research and analysis, and by encouraging and examining submissions from the public.
The major proposals were consistent with the PNC’s submission to the Constitution Reform Commission in which it advocated “inclusivity” as a form of government that would be relevant to the problems facing the nation. “Inclusivity” was defined as a system of governance that would involve all interests, including the majority party and the opposition.
The proposals called for proportional representation, as determined by periodic national elections, to be used to fix each party’s level of involvement in the national government. They also recognised the need for predetermined structures and procedures to be enshrined in the constitution or in any multiparty agreement to facilitate decision-making by consensus and to resolve disputes in the national executive. It was envisaged that the larger the margin of victory of the winning party, the fewer would be the inhibitions to the exercise of its powers in the multiparty executive. And in order to prevent foot-dragging and undue delays, the design of executive and legislative decision-making processes would incorporate decision deadlines beyond which special mechanisms would be triggered.
It was stated that the new system of governance must mandate the participation of the public and civil society in national decision-making and expressly provide mechanisms for the economic empowerment of the disadvantaged. Additionally, there was a recommendation that measures be put in place to ensure the appropriate representation of special groups, like women, Amerindians and young people, in the national decision-making process.
At the time, the PNCR argued that there are a number of facilitative conditions for the success of multiparty governance. They cited the ability of the major parties to sit and discuss rationally as they did in the constitutional review process; the presence of strong “partiocracy” (the situation when parties can control or manage the actions of their supporters, thereby maximising the chances that agreements struck among party leaders will be respected by most party members); the interests of international stakeholders (financial institutions) in preventing failure; and the convergence of ideologies among the main parties.
Share Governance = Brain Dead.
If Corbin cannot share the ‘leadership’ of his own party with Vincent how can there be any shared governance?
By the way Trotman’s idea on RDC is worth thinking.
I fully agree with you. Corbin is a has- been who wants at least to be ’something’ before he quits.
Corbin is a relic from the past burnham regime. He was the kind of individual that kabaka put into power to maintain authority.
Guyana needs fresh young educated minds to lead that country. Minds that do not see people as color, but seem them as worthy citizens who deserve the best. For this you need people educated in Political Science, Economics and Finance, Agriculture & Forestry…..I think we do have them, but they are steeped in the same ole same ole kind of ‘Ahwe dis politics’.
Pull yourselves out Guyanese..start respecting each other, loving each other, stop stealing and murdering each other, stop the blatant rum drinking to waste time, engage each other in good and meaningful conversations. See the goodness in each other no matter how small ….. only through unity can you people change for the better. No God is going to come down from the sky and do it for you (that does not exist)….you have to do it for yourselves and each other. Don’t let the devisive politicians divide you when you unite….racism should be a thing of the past.
Good Luck.
Macushi i agree with u, he cannot fix his own party how can he fix the country?
I do not want him in govt, he might go and buy a piece of rope worth hundreds of US dollars and the country cannot afford that kind of waste now.
Stabroek news can u shed some light on what happened to the barge, how much was paid for it, how long did it last?
If corbin tek a bucket and attempted to bail flooded areas, he would be doing the country a greater deed than to ask for shared governance.
It is evident that Corbin has no desire of representing the people interest anymore,rather a back door entry with a programme full of self aggrandizement while not upsetting the apple cart of the PPPC interest. Power devolution according to Mr. Trotman has been the only successful formula Guyana has seen in the past. The new formula of small government centrally located has created disastrous outcome for all communities across Guyana. The point raised by GAP/ROAR about civic society being compromised is worth noting given my strong view that their should be some independent thinkers not politically align to party politics. Mr. E Franklin concern therefore raise serious questions about the state of mind of Guyanese.
Shared-Governance is in all account an empty posturing offered to promote a solution to distrust and inept leadership that has plagued this country for several decades. The PPPC nor the PNCR has no monopoly to solution that has plagued the economic and social development of Guyana, however they collectively have contributed enormously to the extant state of affairs. What may be needed in the interim having considered all issues which confluence to the problem and solution is a neutral zone (of civic minded citizens of impeccable character) in parliament that buffers any party from passing any legislation inimical to Guyana future development. As a people we have ingrained in our PSYCHE AND DNA THE BELIEF THAT MEDIOCRITY IS ACCEPTABLE, AND SHOULD BE EMBRACE SINCE NONE IS PERFECT. The advocate of such philosophy have themselves seen the end result of such practice, just look at the current economic situation. However they at least have the means however limited to address the demise. We do not have neither the where with all nor the luxury of time.
PRUDENCE IS THEREFORE THE RULE OF THUMB.
In a national new year’s broadcast, Corbin said this year must mark “a decisive shift” towards genuine national unity through shared governance, “I am once again calling for a genuine inclusiveness that embraces all stakeholders in our society in the process of building this nation,” he announced. “The prevailing exclusionary approach to governing Guyana will bring us nothing but disappointment and disaster.”
Did Corbin really used the word “inclusivness”?
Well Corbin that is what you have at present in your Guyana “inclusive Governance” but that is not good enough for you…you want “shared” Governance…
Are you out of your mind?
First you must stop telling your people that ppp rigged elections to get into power…you must stop your people that they are discriminated agaisnt and marginalised..you must tell the Guyanese Nation that you are sorry for what your party did to Guyanese for 28 long brutal years..you must tell the Guyanese people especially your core supporters how your party gained power through rigged election after election up to 1992…Corbin you ought to be forthright with your people and come clean before anyone can trust you and your pncr party..
ITS ALL ABOUT TRUST::::::
evileyes happy new year to U my friend…………. much success in 09.
It’s true that certain segments of the guyanese society are “discriminated against and marginalised”. I will take you up on that anytime.
However, I do agree with everything else you said. I have long held the view that relics like Green and Corbin should be assigned a place at the Smithsonian.
Though the concept of “inclusiveness” and “shared Governance” may be worth some consideration, Corbin should be ashamed to vent those sentiments. Afterall, it was under the “leadership” of the PNC, that Guyana went through a period of hell on earth, assumedly with their (Green/Corbin) fullest blessing.
That they have the gumption to be promoting themselves as “agents of change”, is what I find ridiculous. Has either of the two ever apologised to this nation for their involvement in what was a very oppressive regime? If the answer is no then why the hell do they even have a voice today?
I WOULD NOT EVEN SHARED MY PLATE OF RICE WITH CORBIN, ALWAYS REMEMBERING THE 28 YEARS OF HELL.
Mr Eeyes the only thing, I would share with him, is a boll of Rice Flour. Because I don’t think, he ever teased it.
LoveGT4Real
A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU TOO WISHING YOU ALL THE VERY BEST EVER.
DONT TAKE ME UP ON THAT MARGINALISATION THING….
IT IS NOT HAPPENING NO PART OF GUYANA…
YOU GO TO GUYANA AND SEE FOR YOURSELF WHATS TAKING PLACE THERE…GO LIKE I DO TWICE A YEAR…
NO PART OF GUYANA DISCRIMINATION IS TAKING PLCE…..
ITS THOSE “SO CALLED LEADERS” WHO ARE CRYING DISCRMINATATION WHEN THEY DONT GET THINGS THEIR (THEIR) WAY….
REMEMBER CORBIN HAD ABOUT 30 PEOPLE MARCHING WITH HIM THROUGH THE STREETS WHO ARE CRYING HUNGER???
WELL THEY WERE RIGHT TO CRY HUNGER COZ CORBIN PUT THEM TO MARCH AND DIDNT FEED THEM…….SO IF WE TALKING ABOUT DISCRIMINATION THEN ITS THOSE WHO CORBIN DISCRIMINATING AGAINST……
That is my problem with you Evileyes; you want the PNC followers to accept and apologize for their wrong doing (and rightly so)if there were any, but you continue to deny the ills of the PPP government. One word is my example of marginalization and discrimination; LINDEN!
If all these party leaders want to get in and share power, then who will be left as a genuine alternative vote for the people. This clearly tells me that these guys are all obsessed with power and control, and do not give a damn about the people.
They are trying to strong arm their way to the helm of power and control by any means necessary and not by the democratic process.
What I see here is just another bunch of greedy, power drunk foxes trying to get into the henhouse, through a back entrance.
Joe.
After President-elect Barack Obama’s victory here in the United states of America on November 4, 2008 just what is Robert Corbin thinking by his call “for call for shared governance”. It is either that he can lead the People’s National Congress (PMC) to general elections victory in Guyana or simply step aside and let someone else with the leadership qualities of the late L. F. S. Burnham take over the reign on that party. And, it is as simple as that. The Hoyte/Corbin leadership of the People’s National Congress has presided over the destruction of agencies/institutions such as COFA, (Guyana Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Development Bank, Guyana Mortgage Finance Bank…), the Guyana National Service, Guyana Airways Corporation, the Glass Factory, the Clay Brick Factories apart from selling out of the bauxite industries to the Russians and Chinese; and, the timber industries to the Malaysians…. in addition to all of the above there appear to have been no press coverage of Robert Corbin visiting the distressed communities now inundated due to incompetence and poor development strategies by the present PPP Administration. Do the Guyanese people need to have an “old house” on another “old house” (two old horses pulling the cart).
Time For Change!
Can Guyanese Voters Do It – Yes You Can.
Extract: “He added the government must strip itself of its pretence and its inward looking political posture and listen to the voices of the people.”
First, what voices of the people is Corbin talking about? Is he hearing voices in his head? Guyanese don’t want shared governance between the PPP and PNC after over 50 years of the two parties wrecking the country with their politically inspired ethnic divisiveness. Both the PP and PNC have proven they are all about themselves (leaders especially) and it is time for Guyanese to end their relationship with these two losers or else all Guyanese will continue to be losers.
Second, I have long been highlighting the PNC’s docility in the face of the PPP’s hostility as possible proof that the PNC is waiting on the PPP to share power. Unfortunately, the PPP is using the docility to become increasingly hostile to the democratic process, and even if the PPP does share power, it would only do so AFTER it has achieved its goal of ABSOLUTE CONTROL of everything in Guyana, just like the PNC did when it was in government.
Is Corbin opening the door for Jagdeo’s third term?
VERY GOOD QUESTION, Singh! I believe the answer is YES.
it is time Corbin step down
joe coxall
you are so right
mr. corbin its time, you have to go please go quietly sir .