Ogunseye’s proposal for reforms before elections appeals to the best instincts of the population

Dear Editor,

Mr. Tacuma Ogunseye in his recent letter `Opposition should struggle for constitutional reform instead of participating in elections’ (July 20, 2010)  is  putting forward arguments which  invite Guyana to face its future and reach for its repressed political conscience.

With an all–races, multi-forces power sharing focus, Guyana will be not be perfect overnight, or soon, but will be in a far better condition  to overcome the half century of self destructive, anti -developmental  division. Most current writings try to avoid tempting judgments.

Mr Ogunseye, always daring, has correctly dared to raise this issue at a  time when  non governmental forces are working to achieve some kind of electoral agreement with the aim of displacing a regime grown odious, corrupt, and ineffective although it still rules.

David Hinds in his speech at the National Library examined many aspects and angles of Guyana’s social plight and supported an opposition forces  union, with the farsighted rider that for him  a government of national unity should include the present ruling party. The two although they seemed to use different arguments are not very far apart in what they see as desirable on a longer tem basis.

Mr Kissoon lecturer and columnist ventured the opinion that a united opposition can possibly defeat the current government. Mr Dev. who does not always agree with his fellow columnist, allows for a possibility of a united opposition ”if  they can coalesce” winning the elections. He adds that  if they succeed they can   “performatively demonstrate the precursor of a government of national unity.”

An offensive ruling party may still be popular with its supporters. Any one who proposes power sharing that includes  an offending government comes under suspicion, but Guyana has matured. In 1961 the suspicion was much greater than now.

Many opposed the joint government we proposed –and it was not a two party proposal without checks –  because it would give the “communists” of the time, or the “enemy” a chance, rather than throw them out.

What is the usefulness of such arguments at this time?  I do not wish to place the stain of history  on Tacuma’s proposal. In my opinion it is one which appeals to the best instincts of the population and to our higher aspirations. It proposes constitutional reform to provide for power sharing as a first  development. Does that not make sense? Is it beyond what  the combined talents working in the hearing of the people  can achieve?

It was  one of our unrecognized political saints, the late Keith Carter, who proclaimed in Guyana in the 1950s, from within the ranks of the PPP  “I place my country before my Party.”

From decade to decade choices like this have been placed before the people and these choices have always been settled by rivals for power.

Brother Tacuma has put his proposals as early a possible in the year before due elections. There is always the chance though that a ruling party may, as in 2001,pre-empt ongoing all party discussions by use of discretionary powers. Acting as President in 2001 Prime Minister Hinds dissolved  parliament while all party discussions simply about electoral rules were in progress. Only the WPA protested, ignoring the taunt that it was not “ready”

Mr Ravi Dev, among the  scholar-writers, perhaps the keenest and most convenient reader of texts, does not always agree with Mr Kissoon among others. But  he does not reject the argument that a combined opposition can edge out the ruling PPP. He speaks like PNC demographers of  2001 of  a  reduction of the PPP supporters as a block in the electorate, Mr Eric Phillips, shared many valid insights on the Westminster system.

Some may say that some are speaking from an African point of view since they both advocate some form of  national unity government. For nearly a decade I have said nothing about power sharing. I for one  would not care to discuss it during applied violence.

Generally there is the habit of  taunting advocates with wanting a “piece of the action”. This  is not a sane answer to proposals for  stability. It is in fact a vulgar response that gloats over Power and its privileges and taunts the Other with wanting to share in excesses and delights. It is a  most obnoxious taunt, that exposes the gloating of those who use it.  A great achievement of humans is to make  advances in the struggle, and it is a struggle, to make power not a personal facility or a party facility but  a public resource. I had once tried the idea of describing the WPA, when I was active in it after 1992 as a political service organisation.

Of all the opinions I have had a chance to  read  or hear, Dr Hinds seems to stand out as the one taking time to call on the party leaders to discuss the reality of ethnic insecurity with their supporters. He did not seem to mean only members. These conversations on the streets of Guyana whenever attempted in a fair way have drawn forth the best from Guyanese gatherings, of all races. There are ways of appealing to the best desires of people and helping them to free themselves from what Rupert  Roopnaraine has called our “racial prisons”. Everyone knows that the WPA did this in all communities. What is not known is that after the 1973 “selections”, a term used by ASCRIA   and reported by Rickey Singh,  ASCRIA  itself  began to discuss rigging  publicly, and in African  communities. Fr Harold Wong in the Catholic Standard, had labelled them “fairy tale elections”.     We went beyond that and  made a connection between the shooting of two PPP election activists  and the mysterious deaths soon after of  Guyana National Services units in the Canje Creek. We argued effectively that guns could be pointed in opposite directions. We held these meetings in majority African communities, at street corners,  under the terms of the Public  Order Act by notifying the police and without applying for permission to use  a noisy instrument. Attendance ranged from about fifty to about eighty.  There was no heckling.  Discussions were reflective and not as abrasive as in a previous period.

I hope believers of a certain pursuit at least see the point. Take the mote out of your own eye and this will allow you to see clearly what is in  the eye of the Other!  It is better when all sides do so.

One great merit of Mr Ogunseye’s proposal  is that under it, a government of national unity will be regulated by a constitution. This is very possible without ethnic legislation, which many will find in poor taste. (Yet  so much ugliness has taken place without ethnic provisions).  In the absence of constitutional provisions, there can be a greater risk of instability, to put it mildly.

For me the most eloquent statement  since the much vaunted return to democracy, the exposure of  an arms cache of one major  party’s vigilantes   after the 1997 elections  and the revelation of arms in active use by the other‘s  vigilantes  after the 2001 elections, the east coast-phantom  death dealing confrontation,  is the failure to call in, or of a campaign  to attempt call in  arms, or to  agree on disarmament for the peace of this hostage population.

Most of what has been said and written  recently by people devoted to peace and development  is uplifting. This accursed habit  is too “Guyanese” and too trusting  in arms rather than in ourselves  one another  to reassure the population.

All right! forget for the present what has not been done about weapons. What is there in our small country, to prevent a public  round of public discussion on the need to  promise a treaty for non violent struggle  and for the entitlement of all to respect and  a lawful share in Guyana’s potential, on the basis of education and  work, effort and  equal opportunity, including all races, genders, political preference and location in the country.

Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana