Dear Editor,
There was an insightful letter in your columns commenting on Mr. Corbin’s protestations over SN’s observations about a rumoured future positioning between the PNCR leader and the President of Guyana. The comparative vehemence of the protestation was, as observed, more of a defensive posture, and lacked conviction.
The PNCR leader did not need to be invited to make any media comment. On the contrary, it was up to him to make an unambiguous public declaration of his position on the issue, rather than to allow speculation to be fuelled by his coyness.
The indecisiveness inherent in his earlier loud silence, was underscored by the irrelevant reference to ‘power sharing’ as far back as 2003 (I prefer Mervin’s ‘governance sharing’).
My reservation however is about who is sharing whose power. For while in 2003 the PNCR may have had the glimmer of a bargaining chip, it was snuffed out by the results of the last elections. Why would Jagdeo or the PPP/C be more amenable at this stage?
(In the meantime is it totally illogical to enquire how inapplicable is the principle of ‘power sharing’ with the ‘Vincent Alexander Group’ within the PNCR?)
Hopefully also it may not be too simplistic to contemplate an apparent contradiction in wanting to share the very power which has contributed to the emasculation of the PNCR and the majority of its supporters; which has undermined the judicial system; and which refuses to deal effectively with the prevalent ‘white collar crime’, not to mention drug trafficking; whose global rating on the management of corruption is minimal; and whose general performance has not improved the quality of life individually, and that of institutions like the University of Guyana.
One is genuinely seeking clarification of the PNCR leader of the perceived practical advantages to be gained by the nation as a whole from ‘power sharing’ if there is no consensually agreed plan or programme to eliminate these social, economic and juridical defects.
But there is some light in the long tunnel. If the PNCR would search diligently enough they will want to enquire into the appointment of the chairman of the Public Service Commission whose regulations require the President to have prior ‘meaningful’ consultations with the Leader of the Opposition. Has the latter in fact acquiesced to the appointment of a public officer – namely a permanent secretary – as chairman of Private Sector Commission?
In relation thereto is the PNCR’s delinquency in not pursuing an extant written agreement regarding the party’s participation on boards of national entities – a minuscule advance towards shared governance (but certainly not power)?
Not to mention the party’s total indifference to those hundreds of potential supporters in the Public Service who have been ‘acting’ in various grades above their substantive positions for the last ten years and are not confirmed.
Is the party aware that there has not been a single professional promotion in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the last decade, and concerned that little or no mention is made of their supportive role in the whole Maritime Boundary Award discourse?
Is the opposition party at all mindful of the implications for the quantum of pensions paid to these very persons who are rushed unceremoniously into retirement, to wait another five years for a supplementary NIS pension?
Yours faithfully,
Beaton Downe
