A game of intellectual gaffe

May 08, 2020 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The train has long left the station. But it seems as if some people not only missed the train but also the station.
No one needs to be lectured on the benefits of power-sharing. Any benefits can be considered as theoretical and speculative because there is no example of a workable model of power-sharing in the world.
The South African model, negotiated by Mandela and De Klerk did not last very long. The Government of National Unity did not last beyond the transitional three-year period prior to the development of a new Constitution.
The so-called unity government failed in Indonesia. It became a tool for co-opting parties and eventually suppressing opposition.
Power-sharing collapsed in Northern Ireland three years ago. An attempt is being made to revive it this year.
The Arusha Accords ended in disaster in Rwanda. Political stability has come at the price of human rights violations and political repression.
There is no model, which became a referent point for power-sharing in Guyana. It is quite convenient, of course, to argue that each country must evolve its own model of power-sharing. But no one has yet presented any workable model either for Guyana. All we are getting is talk and more talk.
In any event, the conditions are not suited for power-sharing. I agree with the argument that trust must be established for power-sharing to work but I also agree with the view that trust cannot be developed outside of an arrangement involving the main parties. Without trust for such an arrangement, power-sharing becomes merely aspirational.
Shared governance has been discredited by the Coalition government. According to one of its leaders, it has suffered intra-coalition dynamics that was not properly managed. It hogged political power and even refused to respect the no-confidence motion, which was passed against it. The Coalition represents a false start at mini-power-sharing.
The Coalition is now about to push Guyana off the precipice. It is determined to hold on to power regardless of the consequences. In so doing, it is destroying whatever pretensions it harboured as a trusted force for inclusive governance.
If one of the country’s main political parties, which represents more than 40% of the population, cannot respect democracy, it is not likely that it will ever commit to power-sharing. The APNU+AFC Coalition is now more concerned with holding on to power. Such a discredited political alliance can never be trusted to be sincere about inclusive governance.
Power-sharing can have no place under an autocratic or authoritarian government. Any plan for shared governance under such governments would see one side sitting in the seat of government and the other crawling on its knees.
Those who continue to tout power-sharing do not have the solutions. They have not proposed a workable model and will not do so because there is no model in the world to which they can refer. The local power-sharing advocates lack the capacity to develop an indigenous model. As such, they are resorting to a game of intellectual gaffe or to put in common terms, to farting in the wind.
Power-sharing governments have been useful only where there has been a need for transitional arrangements. National unity governments in this regard have provided short-term stability but eventually they dissolve or collapse.
Democratic government is not perfect. Some say it is ill-suited to multicultural societies. But they have proposed no other workable options, just principles around which some model can be built. The proof of the pudding, however, is in the making and right now the ingredients for the power-sharing cake is not yet on the table much less in the oven.
Power-sharing requires democratic government in the sense that people should have a right to determine who should rule them. Otherwise, those who share power can collectively end up hogging power.
Those who see the need for some form of shared governance should explore some ideas, which have been made before and which can operate within the existing Westminster model. The first was proposed many years ago by Dr. Rupert Roopnarine. He called for a trial system at the lowest common denominator – at the level of local government.
The second idea is to limit the powers of the Presidency. Too much power in the hands of an Executive President can emasculate even the members of Cabinet. If the Presidency is to be retained, let Presidential decisions be subject to a Cabinet veto.
The third is to allow for certain Bills in the National Assembly to be subject to special majorities. In this way, compromise and consensus will be encouraged.
All three of the above suggestions do not involve upending democracy. In fact, these ideas will strengthen democratic rule.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---