Trust building is a work in progress
I wrote in 2004 the following: “…President Bharrat Jagdeo presented the PPP/C’s position on inclusive governance in 2003 at the State House.
The paper came at a time when everybody seems to have an opinion on shared governance.
However, the President’s paper, true to form, sustains a long established tradition where the PPP has always advocated constitutional reforms to enhance the governance process and promoting national unity.
National unity in a multi-ethnic society must be a strategic goal of any governance process…”
The PPP/C Government could rightly stake a claim that it is already in the process of building trust as a prelude to reaching ‘consensual inclusivity’.
For this reason, it is contemptuous to speak about its doors are still open to shared governance; the process is moving, and began its potent movement as far back as 2003, and in some minute ways as far back as 1965; albeit, the movement of building this trust may be slow for some, and so on. But the process of building trust is a work in progress.
And there is another view, as old as when the Roman and Greek gods called the shots, namely, that trust building in Guyana may require bundling a few so-called neutral people, untainted people, who will engender trust in this fragile situation; I hope this is not a joke because it is not funny ‘ha, ha’, but funny ‘peculiar’.
That is a no-no for starters; it is primarily the political stakeholders, banding themselves together, who will have to build any authentic trust; anything else will be farcical.
And it may even be dangerous because exclusion of any stakeholder will pose enormous problems in trust building. This is not what the Guyanese people want.
And what’s wrong with reviewing ‘evidence’, that is, the literature on varied ‘inclusivity’ models; the literature helps to define the problem, in this case, power sharing, with greater specificity and potency for measurement, which at the endpoint, will facilitate monitoring and evaluation exercises; people learn from each other; and where some things seem to have efficacy, we could use them, indeed, subject to the necessary cultural and political adjustments, among others.
I wonder if people would use a medication if there are questions about its efficacy. We would want to be certain from the clinical and other types of evidence that this drug is ‘fine’.
There are challenges, questions about power sharing, but let’s continue with the debate; for even in sustained disagreements, we can find common ground.