Trotman’s quandary

Feb 06, 2011 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

Mr Raphael Trotman is reported to have announced that, henceforth, he is unwilling to participate in a political system where the default setting is for opposition figures to oppose the government for the sake of opposing. “An adversarial parliamentary system is quite against and contrary to the cohesion and development in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-dimensional society such as Guyana’s.”
Mr Trotman, unfortunately, was not clear as to whether he wanted a complete elimination of the parliamentary system as some, notably ACDA, have advocated, or instead reforms to encourage a more cooperative ethos. While he spoke specifically about “removing the executive presidency in one year; restructuring the power structures to ensure devolution and fair and equitable distribution and give real meaning to Article 13; deepening dialogue between political parties and with civil society; commit to the restoration of rule of law in every respect and commit to rebuilding the value and sanctity of life, liberties and human dignity”, from the reports he evidently also proposed, “our own unique form of power sharing and inclusive governance uniquely designed for our unique situation,”
I believe that Mr Trotman, who has shown much courage in the past in taking progressive positions not necessarily favoured by his cohorts, needs to clarify this bit of ambiguity. There are many out there who have not made up their minds about the political system, and as a person who has “been there”, his elucidation would be useful.
The theory behind our political system, of course, is that if the opposition exposes the shortcomings of the government even as it promotes its own plans to ostensibly correct those shortcomings, the electorate that suffers from the ineffectual government would be more willing to vote them out. The sanction of losing office was expected to keep incumbents on their toes and responsive to the needs of the country. The government in this scenario is very sensitive to the utterances of the opposition; not necessarily because they want to but rather they have to, if they are not to be outbidded, so to speak, for the affections of the electorate.
The theory is based, however, on the Liberal premise that societies are comprised of autonomous individuals who make rational choices on the issues of the day. Or that there are substantial blocs of such individuals – the so-called “swing voters” – that do so. The theory breaks down, firstly, if there are particular groups that vote on some ascribed characteristic such as religion, nationality, ethnicity or race etc., and secondly, if they constitute or approach a majority.
They can easily be persuaded by ambitious politicians that it is in their rational interest to vote as a bloc: their interests can thereby be best “protected”. One or more groups in this scenario would be permanently locked out of governance and therefore critics propose the system must be scrapped and one that includes most or all of the groups in the country must be brought into a “national power sharing” structure. Is this Mr Trotman’s position?
Additionally, and coming to the other point Mr Trotman made, the adversarial model by its very nature exacerbates the schisms that characterise plural societies. This is almost inevitable in a polity as poor as ours and where control of the government has been demonstrated from the beginning as the key to the good life. The urge to solidify one’s political base – grounded in ethnic enclaves – almost compels politicians to pander to ethnic fears. Even if there is no “enemy action”, it is easier to blame one’s poverty on those from the other group that are in power – even if one has to ignore that there may be as many from that group locked in the same condition.
But in the last decade, the demographics of Guyana have been altered fundamentally by the now systemic emigration pattern. Indians are now below 40%, the African/Coloured bloc around 50% with Amerindians and others the remainder.
As I have pointed out, the PPP has been successful in retaining office because they have successfully courted the Amerindian votes while making a more limited foray into the African/Coloured bloc. But just as important was the unwillingness of the major opposition, PNC, to get its act together and demonstrate, in and out of season, that they believe they could win. With the AFC fissioning the latter’s base, the PPP had very little to worry about and it was for this reason we had proposed for the long term development of a more stable politics, the AFC should have been willing to enter a united opposition.
I applaud Mr Trotman’s call for less adversarial politics – even though he may soon be accused of “working from the Office of the President”. But unfortunately, because his party has chosen not to support his call for a new politics of cooperation, save under its umbrella, I suspect it may be forced by its own logic to be adversarial to both the PPP and PNC.
Can Mr Trotman ride two horses going in opposite directions at the same time?

---

---