Dear Editor,
The 2011 elections have created an excellent opportunity for us to forge stronger and more structured partnerships for good governance and development. We are seeing a mass movement of individuals, organisations and other political entities to form partnerships.
The partnerships are being formed between very dynamic organisations, political entities and individuals, most of whom have their own strong philosophies and ideologies.
The question is how such dynamic but different partners could work together for the development of Guyana. In addition, how could this new phenomenon be harnessed for the advancement of the country?
It must be understood that partnerships add value. If there is a common understanding and acceptance that each partner brings an added value to the table and that is respected, then this could be a great opportunity for the partnerships to work.
It is important that the partners who are endorsing the political parties do not entirely lose their individuality. While there is need for compromise, in some cases it would require significant compromise in order for the partnerships to be effective.
However, they should not totally surrender their individuality – their philosophies and ideologies. It is also important that the host parties be flexible and open to integrate components of the added value of the endorsing individuals, organizations or political parties into the host parties‘ policies and programmes. This would facilitate mutual benefit, a key element for partnering.
If this is encouraged, then long-lasting partnerships could emerge in the government and opposition, which could be a terrific idea for development and governance in Guyana. If these partnerships are structured and are successful, this new movement would enable more diversity in political parties and in politics generally in Guyana. It would change the landscape of the political culture, especially where there are more bonding-type political groups. The difference between a political culture that promotes diversity and one which encourages the bonding type is that the first fosters an environment for inclusion, is more multi-cultural and to a large extent will be non-discriminatory, while the second is inward looking and has a tendency to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups.
However, we should not take it for granted that because these new partnerships are a good idea and were built with the best intentions, they would accomplish their purpose naturally. There is a science and an art to partnering, collaborating, forming alliances or working together for development. It needs to be structured and the science and art must be learnt by those forming partnerships for governance and development.
Whichever political party wins the 2011 elections, therefore, it will be imperative for members of that government to learn the science and art of partnering, and how to manage and sustain these partnerships for good governance and development, otherwise a great opportunity to work together with diversity could be lost.
Professionals all over the world, from various disciplines and from public, private and civil society sectors are returning to academic institutions and are exploring opportunities for training in partnerships to learn how to work together to become more integrated for effectiveness in development. Some of the best academic and other institutions are now re-designing their programmes to specifically address partnership as a development paradigm.
These include the United Nations, academic institutions such as the University of Cambridge and organizations like the Prince of Wales Business Leaders Forum.
I would therefore suggest professional partnership training for the government, no matter which party wins the elections, and perhaps for members of the opposition too, because most of the parties have formed significant partnerships. I think this kind of higher learning for our politicians could be crafted and led by organisations like the UN/UNDP with support from other international organisations. The focus and content should be heavily on building, managing and sustaining partnerships for governance and development.
As a matter of fact, it may become necessary for future programmes on governance and development in Guyana to incorporate the science and art of partnering, since many of the partners at the political level represent constituencies; those constituencies and the society as a whole will need to be taught effective partnering.
I wish to emphasize structured partnership, not a casual approach to partnering.
Yours faithfully,
Audreyanna Thomas
