APNU Wants Shared Governance and not Inclusivity

Oct 10, 2023 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

The SN article (of 10/8/23) suggests that Brooklyn, New York is “the epicenter of the Guyana migrant community.” Well, Brooklyn is not the epicenter. Rather, it is Queens, New York, which also has the highest concentration of Guyanese immigrants. Richmond Hill in Queens has been designated “Little Guyana” by New York City. Richmond Hill was a center of the struggle for the restoration of democracy in Guyana pre-1992. Both APNU and PPP/C leaders know that the Guyanese Queens diaspora is an important political force.

While APNU leaders might feel more comfortable when they visit their political base in Brooklyn, and PPP/C leaders feel similarly to visit their base in Queens, they also know that reaching across each community is necessary for nation building and to broaden their support base. The late President Desmond Hoyte visited Richmond Hill and walked down Liberty Avenue, Queens greeting Guyanese. More recently (August 2023), Opposition Leader Mr. Aubrey Norton visited Richmond Hill and held a meeting at Starlite Pavilion. When President Dr Irfaan Ali was in New York in September 2023 to attend the UN General Assembly, he managed to squeeze into his tight schedule a meeting in Queens just a few hours before his departure to Guyana. The representatives of Brooklyn requested the President to have similar engagements in Brooklyn, and he promised them accordingly.

The Brooklyn segment of diaspora has Minority Leader of the US House of Representatives, Hon Hakeem Jeffries, to whom they could file their complaints and elicit his support. They also have a powerful New York State legislator, Attorney General Ms. Latitia James, who says that Mr. Rickford Burke is her brother from another mother and warns that the outcome for anyone who tries to harm him (Burke) would not be pretty. The Queens-based diaspora has no such Congressional representation.

Mr. Burke’s “perspective in relation to this country’s party politics fall at the extremist end of the spectrum and are counterproductive at a minimum, if not potentially destabilizing.” It is hard to disagree with this statement. The Burke group’s rallying cry has been racism, marginalization, electoral reforms, discrimination in contract awards, and lack of inclusivity. They are just reflecting the claims made by PNCR activists in Guyana. I have written a few evidence–based letters to Hon Hakeem Jeffries warning him of the falsehoods being pedaled by this Brooklyn group in their attempt create social upheavals in Guyana and suggested that they (Mr. Jeffries and other US Congressional Reps) visit Guyana to observe the situation for themselves. I am pleased that the PPP/C government has extended a formal invitation to them for this purpose.

While there is some suggestion of conflicting position in the outcome of the meeting between President Dr. Irfaan Ali and Hon Hakeem Jeffries, the crucial point of note is that for the very first time, Mr. Jeffries and the Black caucus got the other side of the story directly from the Guyana Head of State.

As to inclusivity, the PPP/C government asserts that Guyana has the most inclusive mechanisms in the Caribbean. The Parliamentary Select Committees, for example, have enormous powers, and the Chair is rotated between the two Parliamentary political parties. There are 5 constitutional rights commissions established in 2001 in which the Opposition has a say. Parliament is managed by a joint Parliamentary Committee comprising an equal number of members from both parties. Parliamentary debates offer another avenue for inclusivity. It would be helpful however if proponents of inclusivity could identify other areas on inclusivity. (There is no evidence to support racism, marginalization, and discrimination).

What the Opposition wants is to have a say in the day-to-day operations of the country. In other words, they want power sharing. When they held state power (2015-2020), President Jimmy Carter initiated a call to both the Opposition Leader Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo and President David Granger urging them to work towards shared governance (or power sharing). In response, Mr. Granger named Mr. Moses Nagamootoo to lead the talks. Mr. Granger knew Mr. Nagamootoo would not be acceptable to the PPP/C. He deliberately made that choice to kill the Carter initiative. There was no further call for shared governance. For many people, they feel that shared governance should become part of constitutional reform. However, the Attorney General reported that the response to constitutional reform has been sluggish, even though that was the leading campaign promise of the APNU+AFC in 2015.

The PPP/C in the past decades spanning 1960 to 1980 invited the PNC to set up a coalition arrangement but they backed out. There had been conflicts over the allocation of ministries, the underlying cause being mistrust. Here are the roots of mistrust. The PNC embraced the United Force party (UF) in 1964 to form a coalition government and after consolidating its state power, threw the UF to the curb in 1968. More recently (2015-2020), the PNCR marginalized the AFC party which lost its direction and identity. There is an element of shared governance by which the President and the Leader of the Opposition must jointly agree to the appointment of the Chief Justice and the Chancellor of the Judiciary. But this system of shared governance has not worked for 17 years in respect of the substantive appointment of a Chancellor and 21 years for a Chief Justice. This model allows for gridlock. It is these types of experience that do not help in the development of trust which is foundational for shared governance.

My view is that what the Opposition wants is not greater inclusivity but rather shared governance. They want executive power sharing. They could achieve this through the electoral system, which has become highly competitive with no ethnic group having a majority in the population since 1990. Each political party must be challenged to make their case to the people.

However, I am not discounting dialogues between the two main political parties, but the terms and conditions must be stated clearly. The President has always said that he would consult with the opposition in accordance with his constitutional obligation. Broader consultation would depend on the willingness of both parties to engage constructively. Who would activate this broader process? One must never forget that President Dr. Irfaan Ali carries government to the people and consults directly with them daily.

Sincerely,

Dr. Tara Singh

---

• Attorney General, Dr Tara Singh, Guyana, Ms. Latitia James, New York State legislator

---