Dear Editor,
I ended my last letter by suggesting that another election fight under the same rules may not be the best thing for Guyana at this time and that another way is more sensible. I wish to elaborate. But let me make two things very clear. First, I fully support the no-confidence motion. Second, I regard constitutional reform aimed at institutionalizing winner-does-not-take all or power sharing as a prerequisite for forward movement. (I never liked the term shared governance, as you can share governance without sharing power). Like those who promote elections now, I would like to see the back of the PPP government. They have been worse than any previous post-colonial government. And I say this as someone who risked limb, liberty and life to remove the PNC government.
But to go to another election under the current rules is to repeat an old error—groping in the dark. After five rounds of delusion since 1992, arising from all kinds of silly assumptions, it should be clear that our entrenched ethnic voting pattern will not be easily overturned. In 2011, we got as far as we could get in the circumstances. The present electoral and governance systems reward one-party and ethnic domination and have to be discontinued if we are to move forward as a joint nation.
I am aware that nothing is impossible in social and political motion, but it would be a stretch to think that either the PNC, APNU or the AFC could win the plurality of the vote needed to assume the presidency. While a pre-election AFC-APNU or PNC coalition is tempting, it would be tactically foolish at this point. The AFC has done little or nothing to liberate the Indian Guyanese electorate from the fear of the PNC. That party may argue, with some justification that it would have been suicidal to attempt to do so. But even with Moses Nagamootoo at the helm and in the face of some Indian Guyanese discontent with the PPP, the AFC would be hard-pressed to muster enough Indian Guyanese votes to allow the APNU’s or PNC’s presidential candidate to win a plurality. One can expect that that possibility would be one of the PPP’s trump cards on the campaign trail.
So where does that leave us? Constitutional reform aimed at a political solution before the election is a long shot, but it has to be the way forward in the short to medium term. The PPP has signalled that that is not a consideration at this point. That party wants to regain the parliamentary majority it lost in 2011 even as it is unsure about such an eventuality. That is why they are hesitant about new elections. And my sense is that the APNU is also hesitant. The AFC may think it has nothing to lose from new elections and as such seems the most enthusiastic about the prospects of new elections. But I think that that party needs to look at the big picture and is capable of doing the proper thing.
I think we are approaching a delicate moment that if handled properly could give us yet another chance to push for a political solution. Since no party negotiates itself out of power, any solution must include reassurances to the PPP. Since the APNU and the AFC have parliamentary power, they would also have to be reassured. It is against this background that I propose that instead of going to elections after the no-confidence vote, the parties should agree to set up an interim all-party government. It may be better to set up such a government before the no-confidence vote. The PPP should retain the presidency, but the Cabinet should be proportional. (I would have no problem with the PPP even having a slight majority in cabinet). The present constitution allows for the setting up of such a government.
This interim government should be charged with facilitating and implementing constitutional reform of the electoral system, the governance system and the executive and legislative branches. I think this is a patriotic approach that puts Guyana first. Working in the interim government would allow the parties the experience of working together on matters such as the budget, the anti-money laundering legislation and other outstanding issues. In fact the government should be mandated to address these outstanding issues.
Let me say in closing that this suggestion is not new. In 1990 and 1999 the WPA proposed such a formula. When it became clear that the 1990 election could not be held by the constitutionally mandated date the WPA proposed an interim government to run the country until the electoral reforms were completed. The then president, Desmond Hoyte, supported the proposal, but the PPP did not. Again, when the Herdmonston Accord cut the PPP’s term by two years after the 1997 election, the WPA proposed reinstating the two years and having an interim government serve during that government. Both major parties rejected the proposal. Now, we have another chance to do something reasonable.
Yours faithfully,
David Hinds
