Reorganizing the state requires an organizing idea

Sep 30, 2012 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The question has been asked. It should be answered.
It is not the type of question that can be answered with a simple “yes” or a simple “no”. It is a complex question that requires a simple but by no means a straightforward answer.
The question is whether we can organize to live more wholesomely. That question needs however to be rephrased to mean can our political parties improve their relationships because when it comes to the ordinary citizen, they do, for the greater part, live wholesomely with each other.
Where the unwholesomeness emerges is when it comes to the political organization of the State and more specifically the competition for State power by political parties. This competition, however, is mere symptomatic, exemplifying rather than being the source of divisions within the society.
At the heart of this division are suspicion, fear and insecurity of the “other.” That fear, insecurity and suspicion can only be partly overcome by appreciating our common humanity.  Pleas for such appreciation are merely plasters used to conceal the real and deeper rooted problems that subsist within plural societies and especially societies in which there are two main dominant ethnic or cultural groups.
So how can our society be organized in a way that would allow us to live more wholesomely? Several models have been proposed. But can models truly attenuate the underlying fears, suspicions or insecurities?
Or will these models themselves become victims to the underlying fears, insecurities and suspicions? Or can there be a model that is actually tailored to deal with these fears, insecurities and suspicions?
One model that has been proposed to deal with the problem is federalism. Those who advance it argue that it will promote ethnic security and cooperation. But this model has been rejected, and it has been rejected because those who reject it are really not interested in the “wholesome” power sharing that the model claims it can produce.
This is not to say that federalism is not without its shortcomings. Two criticisms have been made of the application of this model to Guyana. The first is that federalism is not likely to work in small federal constituencies; and secondly, the specific model of three federal states in Guyana can actually lead to ethnic domination by one group rather than the sort of wholesome sharing of power that it seeks to achieve.
But these shortcomings are by no means insurmountable. After all instead of three federal states, there can be ten whose boundaries can approximate to the existing regional boundaries.
Those who are calling for power sharing will however not agree to federalism. Why should they, when power sharing is not seen as an end product but rather as means towards the eventual goal of coveting political power. Why would there be support for federalism when there can hardly be agreement on sharing power at the “lowest common denominator”- the local government level? Is it because it is not power sharing that is the ultimate goal but rather political power?
And if the present Westminster system is such an aberration and impractical for plural societies such as ours, then what can be wrong with organizing State power differently, say federalism even if it is for a trial period?
Instead of quarreling about IMCs for NDCs  which is really an obsolete model that even the Cubans are disbanding, how about disbanding the entire regional and  NDC systems and having a more wholesome and smaller local government system based on the old village council model? How can there be wholesome development when so much valuable human and financial relations are being absorbed by the local government structures in a country that is suffering from a brain drain.
We have failed to reach agreement on a model for organizing the State and one of the reasons why we have failed is because we have skipped over the most fundamental step: an agreement on the political philosophy that should inform such an organization.
If there can be no agreement on a model of organizing the State, then how about an agreement on an ideology around which the State can be organized.
Every form of organization reflects an organizing idea or ideology. If one is clear about the organizing idea or ideology, then the mechanics can easily fall into place. Since both of the main political parties have a socialist background and since their leadership are often accused of still having socialist sympathies, how about an agreement on what should be the organizing idea around which the State could be rearranged.
After all is the subliminal source of the fears, suspicions and insecurities based on concerns about who gets what within the State? If there can be an organizing idea that promotes each according to his need or each according to his work, then can this not be a starting point for agreement on a model? Can there be an agreement on an organizing idea?
What happens if there can be no agreement on a central ideology for the reorganization of the State? See why organizing to live wholesomely is like going around in circles?

---

---