Crafting a shared governance constitution could be relatively simple

Jan 20, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Since 1965, our own Nobel laureate, Sir Arthur Lewis, writing about the politics of West Africa, concluded that the Westminster-type political arrangement, wherein government-versus-opposition is the mode, can be interpreted as undemocratic.
The basic meaning of democracy, he argued, is that “all who are affected by a decision should have the chance to participate in making that decision, either directly or through chosen representatives.” The second meaning, he claimed, is that “the will of the majority shall prevail.”
If this is taken to mean, à la Westminster, that the winning party can make all the decisions and the opposition only criticise, the two meanings are incompatible: “…to exclude the losing group from participation in decision-making clearly violates the primary meaning of democracy”.
Commenting on this statement, Arend Lijphart, a world-renowned researcher on constitutional matters, in his ‘Democracy’ (1985), contended that while Lewis may be right in general terms, if the voters’ interest and preference are reasonably well served, as they may well be in a relatively homogeneous society where political parties alternate in government, the Westminster-type system may be said to approximate to the “government of the people” definition of “democracy.”
However, in plural societies (societies that are sharply divided by ethnicity, etc) “… majority rule is not only undemocratic but also dangerous, because minorities that are continually denied access to power will feel excluded and discriminated against, and will lose their allegiance to the regime. In plural societies, therefore, majority rule spells majority dictatorship and civil strife, rather that democracy.”
I mention the above to take up two points made by Eric Phillips (SN 12/01/09; KN 13/01/09). He claims that missing from the debate in Guyana is the acceptance by politicians that the Westminster system has failed, and that President Jagdeo is visionless.  I believe that both the issue and the perception are very much intertwined.
Firstly, the debate concerning the difficulties of operationalising the Westminster system in a plural society has been around for far too long for our politicians not to be aware of, and to relate it to — even in some minimalist fashion — the decades-long suboptimal performance of our country. Indeed, all the talk about shared and inclusive governance is recognition of the fact that our Westminster-type system is wanting.
Secondly, the question of a general Burnham’s, Jagan’s or Jagdeo’s vision is of tertiary importance, largely because the pent-up political and social alienation within an unliberated plural society destroys much of what is positive.
Where the need for an aspect of a vision becomes most pertinent and appears lacking is in the realisation that even super-human efforts will find it difficult to drive our plural society towards progress without substantial reform.
Indeed, such efforts can give rise to leadership frustrations and autocratic measures that are more likely than not to make the situation worse.
Understanding the general difficulties inherent in a system does not, however, necessarily lead to the conclusion that it should be changed, unless one can be sure that the change will be for the better. I have heard, but do not agree with, the contention that anything is better than what we have. Allow me short comments on a few important issues.
I agree that shared governance becomes necessary precisely because communities and leaders do not trust each other. But trust will become vitally important in determining how post-election shared governance actually develops.
Another important issue is the possible development of a shared government dictatorship.
Although I have, over the years, recognised the difficulties with the present system, my major concern has been that, in our bipolar racial context, shared governance could lead to a mammoth sustainable dictatorship.  The limited success of the AFC at the last elections has eased, but not totally eliminated, this concern.
Substantively and strategically, we need to clearly understand what is at stake. For example, those who call for a referendum at various junctures seem to not recognise that their recommendation is for a majoritarian instrument to arrive at a consensus arrangement!
The many pitfalls aside, actually crafting a shared governance constitution could be relatively simple, given the quantity of available information and historical examples.  The difficulty is to get to a point where it is universally agreed that such a constitution is desirable.
Dr. Henry B. Jeffrey

---

---