Power sharing is a recipe for disaster

Aug 24, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – In the aftermath of electoral contests in Guyana, whenever the PPPC wins an election and holds the majority in the National Assembly, the refrain for power sharing often reaches a crescendo. The chorus of dissent by anti-PPPC elements, however, is far from a principled stance on democratic governance.

Rather, it is a reactionary impulse, a grab at the reins of power by those who had been unwilling to share power when it was securely, either by foul or fair means, within their grasp. Calls for power-sharing in Guyana, particularly under the rubric of a supposedly tyrannical “winner-takes-all” Westminster system, are not only misplaced but also dangerously naïve. These calls fail to take account of the perils of forced co-governance.

At the heart of the arguments, in support of power sharing is the misconception that the Westminster model, by its nature, excludes the Opposition from any meaningful participation in governance. This view is not only reductive but also ignores the nuanced realities of Guyana’s political system, which is far more complex than the simplistic binaries often employed in these debates. The framework of local government and regional administration in Guyana provides a counterbalance to central authority. Here, the Opposition, when victorious in local and regional elections, exercises significant control over regional administrations and local government organs, often to the point of mismanaging these entities. This is a form of power-sharing in its own right, a recognition that governance extends beyond the halls of Parliament and Cabinet and is devolved downwards to local communities.

The cries for power-sharing often reach a fever pitch when the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) occupies the government benches, only to dissipate into a whisper when the political tide turns. This selective advocacy reveals a fundamental hypocrisy. It is not the system itself that is at fault, but rather the opportunism of those who would seek to subvert it for their own gain. Consider the experiments in power-sharing that have been undertaken in other parts of the world. South Africa, in the post-apartheid era, offers a cautionary tale. The so-called “Government of National Unity” was lauded as a model of reconciliation, yet it quickly devolved into a dysfunctional arrangement, where political rivals were forced into an uneasy marriage that ultimately stifled effective governance. The African National Congress (ANC) and the National Party were supposed to work together for the common good, but the reality was far different. The tensions and divisions that were meant to be healed by this grand experiment were merely papered over, leaving the underlying fractures to fester.

Zimbabwe provides an even starker example. The power-sharing agreement between Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC in the wake of the 2008 elections was a textbook case of how shared governance can become a farce. Instead of fostering cooperation, the arrangement led to a perpetual stalemate, where policy paralysis became the order of the day. The government was neither unified nor functional, and the people of Zimbabwe were left to suffer the consequences. Closer to home, the experiences in Kenya after the 2007-2008 electoral crisis show that power-sharing can often be a band-aid solution to deeper structural issues. The coalition government that emerged was marked by constant infighting, a lack of coherent policy direction, and a failure to address the root causes of the political violence that had necessitated the power-sharing agreement in the first place. At one stage, there were even calls for the establishment of a coalition Opposition to ensure that the government of national unity was held to account. The experiment with shared governance in Kenya proved a failure. These examples should serve as a sobering reminder that power-sharing, while superficially appealing, often leads to the very outcomes it seeks to prevent: instability, inefficiency, government paralysis and a deepening of the very divisions it is supposed to heal. The Westminster system, with all its flaws, at least offers clarity. The government governs, and the Opposition opposes, each playing their role in a democratic dance that, while imperfect, has stood the test of time. It also provides more stability than power-sharing arrangements.

No one however should dispute the need, in multi-ethnic and other divided polities, for greater political consensus. The PPPC has recently rebuffed a proposal to develop a joint national development plan involving all the parliamentary parties. But this rebuff may have to do with the personal insecurities and the desire for maximum control by elements within the PPPC leadership. However, just like with the demands for power sharing, there is hypocrisy in respect to efforts at consensus-building. During the tenure of minority rule under the  Donald Ramotar government, his efforts at seeking political consensus in the Budget approval process were met initially with cooperation and then an about-turn into obstructionism.

This outcome was not necessarily an indictment of the system but rather of the vicious and combative political culture that seeks to undermine it at every turn. The pursuit of power sharing in such a context is not a solution but a symptom of a deeper malaise: a refusal to accept the verdict of the electorate and a willingness to subvert democratic norms for short-term and selfish gain.

In defending the “winner-takes-all” system, one is not championing a system of exclusion but rather a system of accountability. Governments must be allowed to govern, and if they fail, they must be held accountable at the ballot box, not shackled by artificial and ultimately unworkable power-sharing arrangements. The Opposition in Guyana is no longer permanently locked out of office. Changes to the country’s demographics now allow for the present Opposition to win an election freely and fairly even with a polarized electorate, as happened in 2015. As such, the Opposition can no longer claim that it does not have a chance of winning an election in Guyana and use this as the basis for demanding power sharing.

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

---

• Disaster, elements, Guyana, Peeping Tom, PPPC

---