Dear Editor,
Mr David Granger’s stated commitment to inclusionary democracy is most welcome. A meritocratic approach to governance may solve many problems. And by making ethnicity and party affiliation irrelevant, it may contribute to cohesion, unity, stability and the development of a much desired national identity. However, APNU may need to do much more to educate the public about the politics of inclusion, as such ideas are unfamiliar and far outside of Guyana’s political culture.
Editor, since your newspaper published my letter captioned: ‘Can there be any better idea than inclusionary democracy?’ (SN, June 30, 2014), many Guyanese have contacted me, and I have discussed the concept with many persons. None of them, not one, has expressed a negative view of the idea. Moreover, not a single person has said that it is unworkable. The major question that Guyanese have is, how is inclusionary democracy different from power-sharing? That question was addressed in my previous letter, but please permit me to reiterate: power-sharing is political accommodation at the top. For example, the winning party may agree to accommodate a certain number of opposition members within the cabinet. Power-sharing does not generally benefit the people; it only gives jobs to a handful of elite politicians at the top of government. Inclusionary democracy, on the other hand, is a meritocratic democracy which will offer important government jobs to the most qualified persons, no matter what their party allegiances, if any. This is not limited to cabinet; instead, it covers the entire spectrum of government posts at all levels. State-owned corporations, government agencies and other bodies will all qualify to place experienced or otherwise competent persons in appropriate positions. This idea may be the best model of governance to emerge in recent times; we cannot allow it to be obscured by sensationalistic nonsense, it is far too important for that.
Some may say that APNU’s leaders have been, and are, very busy with internal issues. Some may say that the coalition’s public information efforts have been diverted to other matters, and they may have a valid point. It would have been good to see those in the opposition uniting behind an excellent idea and working to educate Guyanese about it. Unfortunately, it is obvious that for many persons in politics, their personal ambitions and egos come first, their party is in second place and the interests of the country are a distant third.
However, busy or not, the proponents of inclusionary democracy must do everything possible to promote the idea. Guyanese must be made aware of what this form of government is; Guyanese must be educated and sold on it. There must be concrete proposals for the institutionalisation of such reforms; the legal and administrative mechanisms must be formulated, proposed and discussed publicly. Citizens must feel free to make an input in a meaningful manner that will result in everyone being invested in the concept. After all, the mode of governance that a party proposes to adopt is the most important part of the party’s identity. Nothing should distract from the promotion of that identity.
Yours faithfully,
Mark DaCosta
