A new problem-space

Jan 24, 2010 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

Last week there were three interventions on some of my comments on the need to abandon the revolutionary road in Guyana and stick to the less glamorous, but more secure, democratic path. I respond to Mr Eric Phillips’ letter, “Ravi Dev has abandoned his Government of National Unity spiel”.
As a parent of two children at Queen’s, I attended their “speech night” last Thursday and listened to the Chief Education Officer, Mrs Geneveive Whyte-Nedd, poignantly invoke the “Desiderata”. I hearken to the line, “Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit,” and so leave Mr Frederick Kissoon”s “Ravi Dev’s combustible political atmosphere” and Mr Lincoln Lewis’ “Democracy is about all the people and their development” for another day.
I repeat once again that notwithstanding his polemics against my proposals, I believe Mr Phillips to be sincere in his efforts to right wrongs he has identified in our country. My problem is with the strategy he has chosen to right those wrongs: to simply make repeated calls for “shared governance” as a moral imperative.
For what it is worth, I would like to assure Mr Phillips that I still stand for all that we proposed way back in “For a New Political Culture” in 1990. These include “National Government”: That future Governments of Guyana be comprised of a party or coalition representing a minimum of two thirds of the electorate in Guyana. “Political Devolution”: That Guyana should be reconstituted as a Federal Republic. “Distributive policies”: That percentage participation targets be established in key sectors of the economy to ensure the equitable representation of all ethnic groups in the society. : “Decentralisation of powers of Central Government”: That the executive powers of the Government be separated from the legislative powers and that the independence of the judiciary be further strengthened. “Non-Hegemonic Integration: Unity in /diversity”: That the different cultural strains in the society be encouraged to flourish. “Uniform Economic Development”: That Economic Development plans take into cognisance the ethnic specialisation in the country.
Incidentally, in that same paper we cited Dr Arthur Lewis pointing out the conflict between procedural and substantive democracy in a divided society. “Arthur Lewis however, to his credit, did not only criticise present arrangements but suggested possible avenues out of the ethnic dilemma. “The democratic problem in a plural society is to create political institutions which give all the varied groups the opportunity to participate in decision making… Each group wants to be represented by its own party and no single party is accepted every where… the solution is not the single party but Coalition and Federalism.” I’ve always wondered why Mr. Lewis, who is given to using Dr Lewis to buttress his calls for shared governance for Guyana, has been so reticent on the “Federalism” component.
On the 2000 claim from Dr David Hinds that we did not acknowledge the contributions of others such as the Elder Kwayana, the PPP and WPA etc in the development of the idea of shared governance, I am not sure what that is all about We have written extensively before and after about those previous proposals: this a matter of the public record. The members of the JCD and then ROAR had always publicly and unreservedly acknowledged the seminal role of Elder Kwayana in identifying and addressing the ethnic problematic in our country. I did not see any warning from Dr Hinds that we would abandon our position on shared governance.
I believe also that Mr Phillips ignores the point that I have been making to him about his approach to resolve our political impasse. In attempting to effectuate social or political change you have to begin from where you find yourself. Just talking about “lofty ideas” got us nowhere in a land riven by ethnic insecurities. We found that out in our own experience.
Between 1990 and 2000, in the press and at the grassroots, we worked diligently to spread the ideas of “The new Political Culture”. The status quo remained. A new approach was needed and was the major imperative in the transformation of ROAR, formed in 1999 as a pressure group against crime, into a political vehicle. Between 2000 and 2006 we pushed the program for “A New Political Culture” under ROAR: Mr Phillips should check the Blueprint of ROAR. Where was the call for “Indian racial domination”?
In Parliament no other party pushed the necessity for “shared governance” as ROAR did: in every speech, including those on the Budget, we pleaded its case. But the fact of the matter is that the PPP, the party that kept winning elections under the present rules of the game (even after the PNC-induced changes of 2000) – insisted that further changes for more “inclusive governance” would come only after greater “trust” was engendered.
In my interactions with members of the PPP, I confirmed that there were members that were sincere about the need for shared governance. The environment – and this included the ethnic security dilemma of their supporters – had to be changed to broaden this tendency. By 2006, working with GAP and the consensual approach of their deliberations and posture, I concluded that the confrontational approach of the opposition had to be jettisoned.
The change in demographics, exposed to me on the 2006 hustings, suggested another tack that did not depend solely on moral suasion. The tools of the master could be used to escape from the belly of the beast. With the problem-space changed from where Indians were – 51% in 1990 to now around 40% – the opposition now had the opportunity for introducing shared governance on their own.
I do not understand how Mr Phillips can label as “intellectual dishonesty” the proposition that in a polity with only 40% Indians the opposition can win the government with a majority, capture the Presidency with a plurality – or at least if the PPP wins the presidency, deny them a majority in the Parliament. In each of these scenarios, the status quo is shaken up and the possibility of new, more stable long-term arrangements become enhanced.
By focusing only on his desired horizon of expectation – shared governance – and not interrogating rigorously our present socio-historical conjuncture, Mr Phillips is ignoring not only the obstacles that prevent his alternative from become reality but the opportunities that can make it so.

---

---