Our system of governance has led to the abuse of powers

May 23, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The election of President Jagdeo was supposed to have ushered in a new era in Guyana’s politics, at the time, the young president’s inauguration symbolized a beacon of hope and promise for many Guyanese who were “willing to give the new president a chance”.
As the president’s tenure unfolded, it wouldn’t be long before the dreams of hope and change would wither and dry up like a raisin in the sun, the goodwill squandered, and the presidency mired in allegations of extra judicial killings, corruption, liaisons with drug lords, and torture.
These allegations have continued unabated and have shaken the very core of Guyanese society.
In the meanwhile, there continues to be a widening chasm between the few “haves” and the many “have nots”
Amidst the obscene display of wealth by the nouveau rich, large sections of the population continue to live in poverty and are not sure, of what will come next. While some are looking towards the upcoming elections in 2011, and are hoping for change; less attention is being given to the current constitutional arrangements and its implications for governance in a racially diverse society.
Within the last few years, two positions have come to define the discussion about power and governance in Guyana’s politics.
The first position represents the views held by proponents of the Westminster model – in Guyana, the party with an ethnic plurality forms the government, and controls all the levers of power, this system is further bastardized by a constitution promulgated on October 6, 1980 which created an Executive President with limitless powers. The other position is that held by proponents of Shared Governance: Historically, the concept of shared governance has been used in many contexts: as a response to ethnic conflicts and political differences over resource allocation and use; as a means of setting up a governing coalition in a context where no political party has won a parliamentary majority; or in post-conflict situations where multiple actors who represent diverse backgrounds seek to control state power.
Shared governance arrangements are also seen as a vehicle to create broad-based governing coalitions of a society’s significant groups in a political system that provides influence to legitimate representatives of minority groups.’
While there are some legitimate arguments against Shared Governance, proponents of the Westminster model have failed to demonstrate why an alternative approach should not be tabled.
They have not stated what benefits the country has enjoyed under a Westminster model since independence.
Moreover, their arguments seem to ignore the historical injustices caused by an electoral system with concentrated powers, in an executive president and his cabinet, a system that took the country through decades of authoritarianism and dictatorship.
This system has led to the enormous abuse of powers, leading to a situation of politicized ethnicity that now threatens to tear the country apart.
In the meanwhile, the country continues to experience high levels of poverty, illiteracy and unemployment, in addition to poor roads and lack of health and educational facilities.
In spite of these failures, the party in power uses its position to allocate resources in a biased manner to the benefit of party loyalists and benefactors.
The governing party hires and promotes individuals, and awards contracts without regard for the multiethnic composition of the country.
These practices have led to ethnic tensions that have plagued the country for decades.
This is a clear sign that the system is woefully inadequate and in many respects manifestly broken.
The chronic failures of this system should suggest that it’s time for a new approach, an approach that would take into account the institutional and constitutional arrangements that would pull every group towards the centre, instead of a system which is designed to keep them apart.
The economic and political marginalisation of certain segments of the population based on race is an indication that the system is not conducive for a country with a complex mix of diversity such as Guyana.
In most societies, the appalling conditions outlined above would insist on a serious need for change; however, the absurd reality is that the desire for change and views on when change is necessary is tragically informed by which ‘group’ is in power. The attitude seems to be that ‘if our man is in power, then nothing is wrong with the system’, hence no need to re-negotiate or restructure the system.
As a result, the status quo has been entrenched in such a way in which a ‘select minority’ monopolizes state power and resources in most cases in the name of a particular ethnic group.
John Falstaff Haynes

---

---