Power-sharing is not appeasement for those who will not accept defeat

Dear Editor,

Much has been said and written in recent times on the subject of power-sharing. In my definition power-sharing is two or more political entities sitting down in a civilized  way to chart the way forward with regard to the governance of a country. This is usually the end result of much consultation on a wide number of issues affecting the parties involved, and most important, coming together for the stability and development of that country.

Power-sharing is not a way of appeasing a party or group of individuals because they will not accept defeat. If this were not the case governments  instead of carrying out their mandates given by the people would be preoccupied with how to please every Tom, Dick, Harry and Beharry who is a bad loser. Just because someone believes that he or she is ‘entitled’ does not automatically make them a subject for power-sharing. Usually one enters into power-sharing when one has won an election, or at least has gained a substantial part of the vote. When one loses that person or party does not have a ‘right’ to share power.

And this goes right to the heart of my debate; the PNC party, hitherto a staunch opponent of power-sharing now firmly embraces it. The record will show a party which held power for twenty-eight continuous years in Guyana and blocked all attempts by the opposition then to share power, so why the urgent appeal for that process now when they are eighteen years ahead in the power game? But it all relates to a well-orchestrated course of action planned to coerce the PPP/C government into accommodating them with power-sharing.

Many writers have graced these pages with the call for power-sharing on the grounds that the PPP/C would always be assured of victory owing to the fact that elections in Guyana are based on the race factor, and since Indians are approximately 43% of the population and Africans 30%  the African-based PNCR would not have a ghost of a chance of winning.

But there are large loopholes in this argument. In the first place 51% of the votes are needed to claim victory and in the last election the PPP/C got some 53% of the votes and the PNCR less than 38%; Where did the other 10% of the PPP/C’s votes come from?. It is quite clear then that the party that commands the confidence of the Guyanese people cutting across racial lines is undoubtedly the PPP/C. Therefore it is foolish to say that elections in Guyana are race-based.

Mr Hinds could never make out an argument for Black voters where in lives in the US in the way he does in Guyana. The United States is a multi-racial nation like ours and the same principle that exists there applies here also. The fact of the matter is the member of a particular racial group has the right to vote for whatever party s/he wishes.

So this power-sharing nonsense is just a ploy to get back into power, and my advice to the ‘power-sharers’ is to go and contest the elections.

Yours faithfully,
Neil Adams

Around the Web