In Guyana, ‘inclusive governance’ is a farce; ‘shared governance’ is a fantasy

Dec 25, 2008 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I read both Tacuma Ogunseye’s letter, “Corbin did not do too badly, given what he was up against,” (December 22) and T. King’s reaction, “It is called inclusive governance,” (December 24), and must say that while I do not agree with all of Mr. Ogunseye’s points, I don’t think T. King’s response adequately distinguishes the difference between ‘shared governance’ and ‘inclusive governance’.
In a participatory democracy, ‘inclusive governance’ is evident in the ruling party’s willingness to allow all opposition political parties, but especially those with elected representatives in the legislative body (Parliament), to easily access government information and debate and legislate on issues pertaining to that information.
Parliamentary opposition parties also sit with ruling party MPs on select parliamentary committees to delve deeper into issues of governance and should be able to call Cabinet ministers and other senior government officials to answer questions at hearings pertaining to their areas of responsibility.
In a participatory democracy, ‘inclusive governance’ may also be extended to civil society stakeholders to have their voices heard on issues affecting their members who may not be associated with any of the political parties, but who play a key role in social cohesion.
Under ‘shared governance’, the concept is usually defined as political parties with elected representatives in the legislative body producing party members to help form the executive branch of government. Cabinet positions are doled out based on negotiations between or among concerned parties. When the ruling party and elected opposition parties form the executive branch of government, it unfortunately raises questions among voters as to whether there is any form of political opposition, and this is where the whole arrangement can become tricky.
Can elected opposition parties with members in Cabinet positions allow their Cabinet choices to openly dissent against the ruling party on issues? Or can elected opposition parties allow their parliamentary opposition members to vote against the ruling party on issues before the legislative body? Just how this ‘shared governance’ concept works varies by country and circumstance, but from what I have read so far on the concept, one of the key elements is that there has to be an urgent need at the people’s level to avoid a social meltdown that can threaten economic security and internal stability. ‘Shared governance’ has to come from the ground up and not from the top down.
When both ‘inclusive governance’ and ‘shared governance’ are viewed in the Guyana context, therefore, what we have is a limited form of ‘inclusive governance’ that serves more to deceive the nation that the ruling party is inclusive when, in fact, the ruling party is working on its own agenda and conveniently involves the political opposition and civil society stakeholders. Sounds more like a broken ‘consultative democracy’?
On the other hand, the ‘shared governance’ concept, as articulated and debated over time by various proponents in and out of Guyana, calls primarily, but not exclusively, for the two major political parties – the PPP and the PNC – to form the executive branch of government, largely because the ‘winner-take-all’ approach to assuming power on Election Day is not working. Why is it not working? Because the electorate votes strictly along ethnic lines, and since Indians, who outnumber blacks, support and vote PPP, while blacks support and vote PNC, then the election outcome will always favour the PPP.
But that would have been the least of the concerns among proponents of ‘shared governance’, had the PPP not gotten into power and began governing like as though it was elected to dictate. The Bharrat Jagdeo-led PPP government behaves as though the government and country are PPP properties, pretty much the way the Forbes Burnham-led PNC was paramount over government and country, and even rendered the political opposition ineffective and inconsequential to the political process. So right now, the calls for ‘shared governance’ by proponents are based on what is happening in the political arena. What is still missing, however, is the absence of the people’s involvement. Guyanese have endured the machinations of the PPP and PNC for 28 and 16 years, respectively, so why not ‘include’ or ‘share’ this potentially historic event with the people by asking them, via a national referendum and not via Parliament, whether they would support the PPP and PNC in ‘shared governance’?
Moreover, ‘shared governance’ is usually preceded by shared concerns or even open friction among people in which the people are openly agitating for change, thus requiring their respective political leaders to sit down and talk about sharing power in the interest of the people. That’s not happening at present at the grassroots level, so ‘shared governance’ would seem to benefit the PPP and PNC and not the people!
Still, while ‘shared governance’ is the PPP’s call to make in response to the PNC, how can the PNC not see it has hurt its own cause in the eyes of the nation when Team Corbin shut down attempts by Team Alexander to have a change of party leadership? Will the majority of Guyanese support the PNC in ‘shared governance’ efforts if its leaders want to hog all the power from leading party members? (Ditto for the PPP). And what kind of message is the PNC leadership sending to the PPP when it behaves like this towards it own?
Meanwhile, it might be instructive for all to recall the much-hyped 1985 ‘shared governance’ talks between the ruling PNC and the PPP, in which the Cheddi Jagan-led PPP itself was eager to share power with the same PNC it accused of rigging elections and to which it conveniently offered ‘critical support’ for going ‘socialist’. The basis for those talks was said to be the ongoing major socio-economic meltdown with no reprieve in sight for a suffering people, yet the people were not openly agitating as one under a single leader thereby leading to shared governance talks. It was all about the PPP and the PNC! It still is!
We still don’t know the true details of those talks, except that different versions have been written. One version said that the main sticking point was that Mrs. Janet Jagan could not accept a ‘shared governance’ arrangement in which the PNC was the dominant/majority partner given that the PPP had a larger support base. If this version is true, it highlights where the focus of ‘shared governance’ was and still is: the political parties. The people were not consulted, regardless of whether they belonged to a larger or smaller support base. What ought to be priority number one is the welfare of all Guyanese, regardless of what base they constitute!
I close by saying that I don’t really don’t see ‘shared governance’ working with the current crop of political players in the PPP and PNC, and if it is ever foisted on the people from the top, it likely will be the start of an elected dictatorship. What we need is a vibrant political opposition that attracts Guyanese of all races based on ideas for making Guyana better for all Guyanese. Ethnic appeals for support and votes will keep us right where we are despite our potential to do much better as a nation.
Emile Mervin

---

---