Some reservations about shared governance proposal

Jan 18, 2019 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,

The establishment of the new political party calling itself A New and United Guyana (ANUG) is welcome provided that it can exert increased pressure for positive change and offer an additional dimension of political choice to voters. I would not be surprised to see other new parties in forthcoming national elections reflecting growing dissatisfaction with the political status quo (the new party FED-UP has announced its formation since this letter was first written).
I particularly welcome the emphasis on constitutional reform as the main policy platform of the new party. As I have said in previous letters, it is clear that the main drawback to progress in Guyana has been a persistent undercurrent of political instability. Being spared the problems of major natural disasters, lack of natural resources, absence of educational opportunities, economic isolation and the like, we create our own climate of instability.
While I agree with the emphasis on constitutional reform, I have reservations about the specific proposals that the new party appears to be embracing. In its understandable preoccupation with the country’s history of ethnically driven politics, the party seems focused on finding a formula for shared governance. Among the proposals advocated as a starting-point for discussion, is the idea of a system in which all the parties winning more than 15 percent of total votes would be invited to participate in the government.
This proposal will be appealing to many Guyanese in the present climate of political discord but I doubt that it addresses our fundamental governance challenges. A strong opposition in Parliament is part of a healthy political framework. If all of the major parties are in the government, who is there to critique governmental management and curb excess? This would for practical purposes be akin to a one-party state.
Part of the problem we face is that after decades under the trauma of despotic governance, Guyanese people have lost appreciation of the fact that the government is supposed to be the servant of the people. Consequently, Guyanese people are looking for a benevolent father government to lead us out of the wilderness. Some people go so far as to suggest that Guyana needs a dictator (usually invoking the example of Lee Kuan Yew). The power-sharing proposal plays into this sentiment of an overarching government, to the neglect of considerations of what it will take to deliver the goods (so to speak).
To my mind, the most fundamental weakness of the Guyanese political and electoral system is the lack of accountability between the voters and elected representatives. Elected representatives owe allegiance to their political leaders and not to the voters. Citizens bemoan the fact that the only time they receive candidates’ attention is just before an election. We can expect the low voter turnout at the recent local government elections to be repeated as voters lose confidence that their votes make a difference in their lives.
Let me be clear that I can identify with the motivations behind shared governance proposals but electoral reform design calls for a more in-depth process. With more than a dozen distinct electoral systems and countless combinations in operation around the world, it is clearly feasible to design a system for Guyana that addresses concerns about accountability, inclusiveness and effectiveness.

Yours sincerely,
Desmond Thomas

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News