Dear Editor,
The President has announced May 11 as Election Day. The APNU has announced a government of national unity involving all three major political parties and civil society as their vision of a stable Guyana. The AFC has announced a pro-democracy coalition which includes civil society.
With these announcements have come many debates and much confusion. Reading the daily media and perusing the social media gives the impression that coalition is about race at the expense of issues.
It is well known the winner-take-all Westminster system has miserably failed. The essential argument for a coalition is that the current constitution does not allow post-election coalitions, hence it is best to have one before, if the PPP and ethnic voting are to be defeated,
Unfortunately, the negotiations have been hijacked by poor leadership and bizarre statements. One is puzzled by pre-negotiation demands for the leadership of the coalition and an ultimatum which argues ‘race’ as the central position, when the proponent of this argument claims it is a multi-racial party that believes in equality and justice. It seems as if the pre-negotiating ultimatum is issued to make the negotiating process an unsuccessful one. Such has been the politics of bullying and winner-take-all that Guyana has self-destructed on for almost 50 years. Strangely enough, in this case, it is the child bullying the parent.
Respect is a key component of any enlightened negotiation process. Ultima-tums are normally given by the partner with the strongest negotiating hand. In this case, ‘race’ has again become the bogey man. How does one beat racial voting? This is the anti-deal. It’s the West Indies cricket team telling India let’s have a combined cricket team and we will lead it; you will pay all the expenses and we will choose the players. A pre-negotiating absurdity.
Some acolytes seem to be believe it is about sharing ministries. What a national tragedy this would be. Whether it is a government of national unity or a pre-democracy coalition this Neanderthal approach of a disguised winner-take-all is the last thing Guyana needs. But of course, this is the era of party lists. Once you are on the list, it’s time to party. If our politicians are serious about change and if they are serious about development, then the coalition should be about a common vision, common goals and common economic and political plans. No more party lists.
Constitutional reform with constituency voting should be one of the main agreements in the coalition MOU among the parties. If both the APNU and AFC are serious about change, then the coalition should have other parties and other individuals and hence their MOU cannot be between two unequal halves and between themselves. It must have external input from civil society and other stakeholders. Change means exactly what it means. Good governance in a plural society implies consultation. Isn’t this what democracy is all about? Secrecy is the hallmark of authoritarianism. Isn’t this what we are seeking to change?
Just as important, the coalition should have an agreed upon common economic philosophy crafted by people who understand development. Regardless of the political reforms, Guyana will never develop with the incredible economic inequalities that are in our society today, although the cock-eyed among us will point to 28 years of this and 22 years of that. Perhaps they are blinded to the progress Singapore and others have made over the same 50 years of Independence.
For example, Guyana needs a more balanced and viable economic paradigm than LCDS, which is a concept that is not a growth strategy and hence will not create jobs or youth employment.
Guyana is the only country in the world that has made LCDS its primary economic development paradigm. This is very unfortunate and has to be changed. Guyana needs a pro-growth economic paradigm that nurtures fairness across its
ethnic populations and one that leverages the country’s many economic comparative advantages.
Without an inclusive political framework combined with an inclusive economic framework, the coalition would be a farce that is not in the nation’s best interest. Also without a transformational infrastructural plan, not much will result. Regardless of those who verbalize social cohesion (ethnic perception is fine, you know) as against the preferred social inclusion (let’s have equal access), development and social justice will not be achieved unless there is economic inclusion.
And the coalition MOU must have an underlying economic philosophy.
If the coalition is really serious about good governance, they would assemble a budget team and an economic team. These teams need to develop a 2015 budget and an economic blueprint. The budget is the only instrument that will tell the public what the philosophical and real priorities of the coalition are. For example, the budget for UG should be specified since this is a critical institution that needs reengineering from top to bottom. UG is an institution that should be underpinning Guyana’s knowledge industries and global competitiveness.
The economic team will be able to share a vision with the nation on the path to prosperity.
Today, a large number of Guyanese live on the edge and are economically marginalized. This includes graduates of the University of Guyana who five years after graduation are still seeking jobs or are forced to migrate.
The MOU therefore has to be about a common vision (political, economic and social (justice)), common mission (rule of law), common goals (equality for all) and shared values (anti-racism, equal rights). It must be underpinned by equity, justice and the national good. It is not about alternating the presidency or other race based issues such as rotation. More fundamentally, for change to occur, parliamentarians should remain in parliament and not be ministers of government.
Ministries should be run by competent persons whom are nominated by the parties, shortlisted and approved by parliament. This individuals should be required to present plans of their goals for the ministries they are nominated for.This is similar to the USA where Congress is populated by elected officials who are not cabinet members. Balance and counter-balance.
Guyana needs to become literate. Parliamentarians running ministries illustrate our illiteracy and winner-take-all mentality. We don’t need cats managing our milk or ballerinas performing brain surgery. Our erstwhile politicians need to stop the con game and the bullying game.
There are three options. Each party goes on its own and the status quo will prevail with either the PPP or APNU winning the presidency. Or there is a coalition of any two of APNU, AFC and PPP. Or a new party with a servant leader enters the fray; a party that will give a new economic and political vision that meets the needs of our youth and those frustrated with the status quo. This would make the results even more unpredicatable.
If the unorthodox bullyism in the negotiation process will lead to the collapse of the process and ultimately to more of the same political, economic and social malignancy that is our society today, then the solution may be a coalition led by a person who is not a member of the two dominant races and someone who can be trusted with the national good.
This servant leader should then be tasked with a three-year term to ensure there is constitutional reform, the repositioning of our economy and racial reconciliation. Elections should then be held after these three years with a new people-oriented constitution.
All of God’s children can then come out to play.
Yours faithfully,
Eric Phillips
