The Place of CONgress wants posts

Jan 18, 2009 Features / Columnists

---

The Parrot has been noting the constant harping by the people at the Place of CONgress and their cohorts for shared governance. This harping has been intensified recently and has even reached to the point where government is accused of being unfair in this regard.

There are strong sentiments being expressed in the public domain by Palm Tree jungle which convey the belief that they are entitled to be a part of government. It’s amazing how a regime which ruled this country for twenty-eight years can publicly advocate for something they failed to entertain.

The Palm Tree Party prior to 1992 was entrenched in the practice of party paramountcy; sharing was for party comrades only; sharing beyond the realms of the Place of CONgress was out of the question.

Some “outsiders” who were eventually “brought” in were coerced because of their ability to make substantial contributions. This obviously is not sharing; it’s taking.

The “acquiring” of a limousine that used to be the centre of attraction in a city showroom and that of a certain cinema on the East Coast are just two examples of the ruthlessness of the then government as they took control of property belonging to others.

The list is long. Some businessmen, who are not inclined to talk in public, have quietly alluded to the extortion they experienced by party thugs then. People eventually were made to give out of fear. Sharing? Even when the word sharing was used officially, it had nothing to do with its true meaning.

The KSIs, Knowledge Sharing Institutes, were outlets for the sale of basic food items; food items that were not available to merchants. This was just another attempt for the regime to impose on fearful people. Sharing? Of fear; yes; of governance; no. Were there calls to the effect? Numerous.

For those who lived through those dark days, a rigged election was the norm. In this context, many never envisaged that free and fair and free from fear election on October 5, 1992, would have been possible. Today, that day has to be seen as the day Guyana turned many pages and its back on dictatorship.

Whilst there are varying opinions out there, anyone who sees this differently is clearly not being honest to our history. Sixteen years after that, what is it that the main opposition wants? What is it that they want to share? Clearly it cannot be governance; it’s unfair to ask for something you already have.

The people at the Place of CONgress are already sharing in governance as a result of democratic elections and processes which have been practiced by this administration. Are they being consumed by their many years of undemocratic rule that they fail to recognise routine democratic practices?

If it is that their vision in this regard is impaired, then this is an opportunity for them to be so informed so that their rants can be corrected. They function as the opposition in, what has to be, the most inclusive of constitutions in the Region and beyond. Our constitution is being used as a model of inclusivity by other countries and international organisations.

In Parliament, the opposition is an integral part of every committee, chairing some, including the powerful Public Accounts Committee.

Palm Tree jungle should be made to answer as to where in the Region the opposition chairs such an important committee that scrutinises government. Where in the Region is the opposition so included in Parliamentary committees?

These committees shape opinions in the legislative arm of government. Isn’t this a democratic involvement in governance? Isn’t this shared governance at the highest level for law makers? Does the main opposition utilise the parliamentary procedures effectively?

When they resort to their usual walkouts, are they executing the mandate given to them by the electorate? Are they doing what they are supposed to as elected officials of the National Assembly? The answer is no.

The current practice of shared governance as evident in Parliament and which is reflective of our democracy is also evident in the Regional Administrations and the Neighbourhood Democratic Councils. These norms of democracy were clearly absent from the regime prior to 1992.

Some would not hesitate to brand the folks at the Place of CONgress as being barefaced in their agitation for shared governance when their 28-year rule was devoid of democratic tendencies. Some would question the moral grounds for such agitation. The question of credibility cannot hide. All that they are clamouring for under the guise of shared governance are in place.

It therefore begs the question, what is it that the Palm Tree jungle really wants? Ministerial postings? Cabinet appointments? Ambassadorships? Special envoys?

It seems, based on reliable sources, that the upper echelon of the Place of CONgress would be satisfied if some of these positions are offered. If this were to materialise, then only a few would benefit. Wouldn’t this be just jobs for the “big boys”? It seems that shared governance for Palm Tree jungle means being a Minister or related appointments.

They should be reminded that this arrangement has failed in other countries and, more importantly, the will of the people in the 1992 elections and to date is that the PPP/C be the government. Is it that the Place of CONgress wants the will of the people to be subverted as it was under their 28-year dictatorship?
Squawk! Squawk!

---

---