"Inclusive governance" has become a code-phrase for window-dressing

“Inclusive governance” has become a code-phrase for window-dressing

May 21, 2020 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,

I refer to Havelock Brewster’s letter calling for “inclusive democratic governance”. I wish to comment as follows:
Declaration of results of an election must accord with the law. By Guyana’s law – 15 days. By empirical standards: by midnight on day of polling or within 24-hours of close of polling. There can be no excuse. The law is the law. Mingo should have been arrested. If GECOM would not follow the law (GECOM has become an arm of the PNC), the Courts should have taken over – complete the R-4 tabulation and declare the results to the nation. There are lots of precedents around the world to support court intervention. Mr. Brewster‘s service in EU countries should have inculcated in him a greater respect for law. Question: Why is it that Mr. Brewster can’t bring himself to denounce Mingo’s fraud?
What is inclusive governance? PNC’s and PPP’s idea of putting an Indian and African as Prime Minister, respectively, is window-dressing, not inclusive governance. Forget about the meaningless term “Inclusive Governance’. Both PPP and PNC need to do what is necessary to overcome the perception that they are ethnic parties. Each must be willing to get rid of the unwritten rule that only a person of a particular ethnicity can be leader of their parties. They need to project a genuine multiracial image – and develop practices to back-up that image. They each need to win over at least a certain threshold of cross-racial support – perhaps at least 15%. “Inclusive governance” has become a code-phrase for window-dressing. Deal with the perception. [Note: PPP may have achieved that threshold in the March 2nd elections – but it still needs to deal with the perception that it is an Indian-ethnic party).
Need for a Federal Power as guarantor/upholder of Constitution.
Gov-General David Rose as Head-of-State reported to the Queen of England. That was a semblance of “Federal Power”. A David Rose would not have allowed Ramotar to be sworn-in as president in 2011, knowing he did not have command of the majority in parliament. A David Rose would not have allowed GECOM to hold up the declaration of election results beyond the 15 days allowed by law nor for the elections to be extended beyond three months following NCM of Dec 18, 2018.
This shall suffice as my arguments for outside source of “Federal Power” to uphold the Constitution. Abolishing the Monarchical Constitution was a horrible mistake.
Need for a debate to consider Pro-Union with the United States, Canada or UK
We may have passed the point where Guyanese of themselves, by themselves can work out a solution to the problems that divide the races so pervasively. With African-Guyanese controlling all the sources of power in the State (Police, Army, bureaucracy, power of Street protests in the Capital city, Institutions like GECOM, courts), Guyana has become a made-for dysfunctional State, one no longer conducive for the normal practices of democracy.
Forming a Union with US or Canada provides the benefits of that “Federal Power” – and many more bonus benefits. It is time to have that debate.
This is not funny. So many Cabinet members and Members of Parliament of both PPP and PNC governments have dual citizenship; many send their spouses and children to take up citizenship of America and Canada. Does anybody wonder why? If these folks like the benefits of America and Canada (while still serving in government in Guyana) why not want those same benefits for all Guyanese at home – 740,000? “Same benefits” include a State where the rule of law reigns supreme, better management of the economy, higher standards of living.
It is high time for the Guyanese people to have a national debate on Pro-Union with the United States or Canada.

Mike Persaud

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News