No contrived system of governance will succeed where trust and good faith do not exist between political parties

Apr 20, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I wish to offer a few points for consideration in determining whether shared/inclusive governance for Guyana is a “pie in the sky” or an attainable objective.
For almost a decade, our Nation has been treated to scholarly essays that addressed theoretical frameworks and the practicality or impractically of their application; models adopted by other countries and benefits or setbacks that can descend upon Guyana if shared/inclusive governance is introduced.
Converts have advocated for an adjustment to Guyana’s policy making institutional arrangements; others have suggested caution either because of a presumption that lobbyists are less than forthcoming, or by highlighting an unimpressive track record in countries where the model failed to live up to expectation, or both.
So we have one set of writers suggesting that shared/inclusive governance must be introduced if Guyana is to avoid doomsday (my emphasis) and on the other hand, others retorting that what we have is just fine and workable for the majority of Guyanese.
Why am I even allowing the optimist in me to think we can move beyond the “for and against” rhetoric surrounding introduction of shared/inclusive governance in this beautiful land? Two main reasons: 1 – the person, President Bharrat Jagdeo, as well as the body, the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) currently vested with the authority to agree to concessions if the Nation is to seriously move forward with this concept has not “closed the door” on the idea; 2 – the potential benefits from “giving teeth” to articles 11 and 13 of our constitution.
I will now proceed to briefly elaborate on both reasons: Firstly, President Jagdeo and the governing party formally addressed the issue of “inclusive governance” (not shared governance.
So, for convenience I will stick to the former concept for the remainder of this letter) on February 8, 2003 at State House.
A PPP publication titled “towards Greater Inclusive Governance in Guyana – Building trust to achieve genuine political co-operation” was unveiled on that date. In the final section of the paper under the sub-head “Building Trust”
It states “Recently, executive power sharing has been proposed as a solution to Guyana’s problems.
Quite apart from the negative consequences associated with executive power sharing such as the institutionalisation of ethnic rivalry and the absence of political opposition, no contrived system of governance will succeed in a situation where trust and good faith do not exist between political parties.”
The said paper after suggesting “immediate measures to building trust and to further enhance inclusive governance” concludes with the following words, “In an environment created by deepening trust and confidence, further arrangements for inclusive governance can result after consultation with our constituents and the electorate”.
Additionally, a January 7, 2009 Office of the President release stated in its opening paragraph, “President Bharrat Jagdeo today at a press conference at Office of the President reiterated his position on shared governance that building trust among political leaders serves as the basis which precedes any consideration for an inclusive system of governance that would last in the future and not worsen the political situation”. The release continued by providing details elaborated by the President that suggested trust among political leaders was an elusive aspiration.
Editor, I have noted that almost all the suggested immediate measures for building trust outlined in the February 8, 2003 presentation have been realised.
Item (d) which refers to “devising ways and means to (political parties) working closer together in a non partisan way at the local government level……where development and implementation issues give rise to the possibility of greater cooperation in the short term” is a work in progress.
Further, since the January 2009 release, the President has engaged opposition parties on supporting Haiti in the wake of that country’s disaster; and recently, Mr. Corbin and the Head of State met on preparations for local government elections resulting in the latter persuading the ruling party to agree on delaying the elections. If political parties can collaborate in Haiti’s interest, why not in Guyana’s?
As a consequence of the foregoing, I wish to suggest the following logical next steps as part of a process to determine whether a satisfactorily level of trust is being built as a precursor to national consensus on embracing the notion of inclusive governance.
1) Approach the issue of inclusive governance as a dialogue instead of a debate in future.
2) A coming together of representatives of the body politic who are proponents of inclusive governance for the purpose of engaging the Office of the President/ PPP on the issue.
The grouping does not necessarily have to be led by the Leader of the Opposition at this preliminary stage, but he should be an integral part of the strategy and be supportive of whoever is entrusted as main spokesperson.
3) The group can start by engaging President Jagdeo’s Advisor, Gail Teixeira to: a) Extract unequivocal benchmarks which can form the basis for a conclusion by the President and PPP that an acceptable level of thrust is being built.
I am aware that the situation is fluid and therefore the determinants may not be cast in stone.
b) Agree to a process with timelines to review outcomes pertaining to a) culminating with the engagement of he President/PPP on the issue of accepting inclusive governance either at the central or decentralized level of policy formulation.
My second reason for hope is premised on the intent of Articles 11 and 13 of Guyana’s constitution.
The former speaks to the meaningful involvement of socio-economic organisations, while the latter caters for the establishment of an inclusionary democracy via the participation of citizens and their organisations in the management and decision making processes of the state. Space constraints do not permit me to expand much on this.
However, since there is currently no accepted umbrella organisation for NGOs (I think the IDB civil society consulting group comes closest), I suggest a core group of eminent, well-mannered, tested and proven patriotic Guyanese, devoid of taint or baggage, come together on behalf of wider civil society for the purpose of preliminarily engaging the Presidential Advisor on Governance along the same lines as a) and b) above.
Some persons that readily fit the bill, assuming they are disposed to initiating such a conversation on behalf of civil society are: Major General (rtd) Joseph Singh, Mr. Chris Fernandes, Mr. Hugh Cholmondeley, Mr. Vibart Parvatan, Dr. Edward Greene, Ms Magda Pollard, Col (rtd) Christine King and Ms Sandra Jones.
I am sure there are many others across the length and breadth of Guyana who are equally distinguished and capable.
The core group can form the nucleus of a wider consultation with other bodies that represent, the private sector, organised labour; faith based organisations, the youth, women, cooperatives and other NGOs to explore proposals for building trust leading to acceptance of inclusive governance for Guyana.
Editor, in closing permit me to invoke a few lines from Guyana’s most celebrated poet the late Martin Carter. In one of his poems after stating, “It is midnight, It is midnight” the poet concludes:
“Dew is awake
Morning is soon
Mankind is risen
Flowers will bloom”
Carter aptly named this poem “For my Son”. I hope that the foregoing thoughts would assist the concept of inclusive governance to see the “light of day” resulting in unprecedented benefits of Guyana’s Sons and Daughters.
Derrick Cummings

---

---