A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) on Wednesday restated its support for a `social contract’ as a means of attaining an inclusionary democracy. It was the latest exchange with Stabroek News columnist Dr Henry Jeffrey who had taken the coalition to task for what he said was senseless political posturing and an apparent ruling out of extra-parliamentary activities. APNU, adverting to Jeffrey’s latest column titled `Mr Granger and the undemocratic nature of extra-parliamentary activities’ in Stabroek News, January 15th 2014 said that
Granger, in another Stabroek News (SN) report, in referring to APNU’s ‘Social Contract’ proposal said: “I think it is a serious decision. I pointed out that APNU is committed to inclusionary democracy …APNU from the start of its campaign has proclaimed adhesion to the constitutional injunction under Article 13 that the aim of our political system is to create [an] inclusionary democracy.”
APNU said that Jeffrey, although quoting in part from the SN article, completely ignored Granger’s reference to “inclusionary democracy” in order to make his case. It said that his conclusion might have been different if he had read the SN article of 11th January more carefully and if he had understood the point that Granger made.
“A Partnership for National Unity iterates that, given the state of our nation, a ‘social contract’ is the most appropriate means available to all parties to work towards achieving inclusionary democracy in Guyana”, APNU said.
Jeffrey had said in the January 15th column “As another example of Mr. Granger’s questionable worldview, last week I argued that: `One does not have to be a genius to realise that the establishment of a workable process for the formation of a social contract in our political context is all but impossible!’ Central to such a process would be the need for a level of openness and transparency that the regime has shown that it is not prepared to allow.
“Yet SN reported Mr. Granger as saying that `he was surprised at the rejection (of his social contract proposal) since it was a way for the PPP to salvage its reputation and to improve the quality of governance.’ How could anyone with the slightest understanding of our political reality have been surprised?! What could possibly have given to him the impression that the PPP wants to salvage its reputation and improve the quality of governance?! Is this for real?!”