Dear Editor,
I do not propose the introduction of “the Suriname system to Guyana,” a misconception upon which much of Mr Mike Persaud’s presentation ‘Consociationalism cannot work’ (SN, August 25) rests.
As I understand it, consociationalism, as Mr Persaud conceives it to be operating in Suriname, is the natural outcome of a multi-ethnic society in which no group can gain the majority at a national election and so is forced to form pre- and post-election alliances.
I was suggesting the constitutionalisation of shared governance in an essentially bi-communal setting which has fostered exclusion but since 2011 appears to be gradually engendering a multiethnic society with its accompanying politics of negotiation, compromise and alliances (‘Guyana: bi-communalism in transition’ SN, August 10, etc).
Secondly, somewhat in conflict with the subheading, the burden of Mr Persaud’s contention is not that consociationalism will not work if implemented. From the following, he is saying that it will not be implemented and then proceeds to a rather dubious conclusion.
“Can we imagine the PPP and PNC entering a power-sharing arrangement to share the presidency and Cabinet? I must honestly say I don’t see it ever happening … Their [PPP] campaign strategy for the upcoming election … intend(s) to get back the six per cent vote they lost at the last election by hook or crook. And, their campaign war chest is overflowing with the dollars to do it.”
He then recommends: “We should concentrate on pressuring the Indian group, the PPP and the African group, the PNC to “thoroughly diversify internally” so as to make their parties be perceived as genuinely multi-racial … In this way it would be easier for each party to attract cross-racial support.”
Mr Persaud also claims that even to suggest constitutional changes at this time “is an exercise in futility as there is no chance the ruling party would ever agree to any reform that would put its hold on power at risk. The only chance for constitutional reform would be through people’s power.”
In asking the political parties to eschew ethnic politics is Mr Persaud not asking them to put their ”hold on power at risk”? It appears that he believes that we might succeed in pressuring the parties to court political suicide but would not be able to force them to share power!
Yet, he offered a way forward by the use of “people’s power.” My only suggestion is that we acquire and utilize it to immediately win shared governance and upon a foundation of cooperation in equity gradually build the non-ethnic political environment he seeks.
Thirdly, Mr Persaud should also note that we thought we had made fundamental constitutional reforms not so long ago, but look where we are today. Part of the reason for this is that we failed to take the long view. It appears to me that the two constitutional changes he suggested (“1. Coalitions of parties should be permissible after the elections; and 2. a presidency cannot go to a party that does not win the majority -51 per cent – and/or does not command the majority in the parliament”) suffers from a similar defect.
For example, what happens if a coalition stabilises and/or those representing one of the major groups (say, the African group) is immediately excluded from it? This may not happen in Suriname, for it has a relatively long tradition of compromise and alliance, while we have a tradition of exclusion, information deprivation, etc.
Yet I agree with Mr Persaud that the issue of sensible governance “is the most important of all the national issues that requires a solution.” And in my opinion, since the opposition has largely dismissed the idea of invoking nonviolent “people’s power,” the 2011 election opened a window that changes may be possible if the opposition is able to put the national interest above their party concerns and form some kind of arrangement to participate in the next election with a common list.
Yours faithfully,
Henry B Jeffrey
