Latest update April 24th, 2024 12:59 AM
Dec 11, 2014 Letters
DEAR EDITOR,
I agree with Peeping Tom that power-sharing will not be possible, at least not before the next election. Nevertheless, those who have suggested power-sharing should be applauded for at least trying to find a solution to our debilitating ethnic conflict.
Some of the individuals are very party partisan, with their real goal being that of getting into the corridors of power. But some, like myself, are politically neutral, advocating a genuine political solution to ethnic conflict through “power-sharing”. Some of the writers are noble in their objective, believing that the parties and the ethnic groups should share power. Others are simply looking for a back door to enter into the government and one can see through their scheme.
The concept of power-sharing is not new and has been bandied about since the 1970s. Power-sharing is not clearly defined, but essentially it advocates for the political parties to collaborate and cooperate in governance; they act on behalf of their ethnic groups (that elect them).
As I wrote repeatedly, no race should have dominant control in the state like what happened under the ethnic dictatorship that was voted out of office in October 1992. All the races should have fair representation in government, and there should be equitable distribution of resources of the state, reflecting the demographics. Exactly how this should be done ought to be negotiated by the elected representatives on behalf of those who voted for them.
There have been numerous dialogues about power-sharing. Government-opposition dialogues did not lead to power-sharing. At that time, the PPP called for free and fair elections with the winner getting the Presidency (Chief Executive) and the loser the Prime Ministerial position (ceremonial) with an equitable share of the cabinet based on the electoral results in a united multi-ethnic government. The PNC rejected the offer. The opposition always wanted the top position somehow feeling it had the most support.
During the 1980s, the PNC flatly refused to share power with anyone, claiming it represented (dreaming) all the races in the country with its rigged 80% vote. The then opposition PPP and WPA could not agree on how power would be shared should an alliance win the 1992 election, with the end result being the WPA leaving itself out of power when it objected to Dr. Jagan as Presidential candidate. The WPA tried again in 1997 and 2001 with their power-sharing idea and it was rejected by both the PPP and PNC who were more interested in winner takes all, because each felt it could win the election outright.
As Peeping Tom intoned, although the opposition says it wants power-sharing, it is not genuinely seeking to share power; it wants to be the dominant power because it has one seat more than the government. It is not willing to engage in dialogue to end the prorogation, and agree to some minimum program that would be accepted by all three parties. The opposition wants elections because it feels it can win the election.
While the ideal solution is for all the parties to participate in governance, and it is a goal I endorse, it is not practical for the varied parties to come together now before an election in a national unity government. One has to be realistic that no party in control of a government will want to share power. No party gives up power. It never happened before, not in any society, and it won’t happen in Guyana just because the combined APNU-AFC has a majority of one seat over the PPP.
If one of the opposition parties were in control of the government, would it share power? I think not. That is the reality of governance. So it will be useless to even entertain a discussion on power-sharing.
Power-sharing can work if the parties act matured that they are truly interested in the development of the nation and not their self-interest or simply interested in capturing and retaining office. Power-sharing can work if the parties view themselves as the true representatives of their constituents.
Power-sharing has worked in developed countries like Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, Israel, etc. In these societies, the parties act as genuine representatives of their constituents and negotiate for resources on behalf of them. The party of the Waloons don’t pretend to represent the part of the Flemish, and vice versa. The Jews don’t pretend they represent Arabs and vice versa. The party of Germans don’t pretend to represent the party of the French or the Italians, and vice versa.
When the parties in Guyana accept reality that their support comes primarily from ethnic constituents, and that genuine multi-racial governance is necessary, then power-sharing will be given serious consideration. One-party dominance will prevail in the foreseeable future, although it is not the ideal form of governance.
Vishnu Bisram
LISTEN HOW JAGDEO WILL MAKE ALL GUYANESE RICH!!!
Apr 24, 2024
Round 2 GFF Women’s League Division One Kaieteur Sports – The Guyana Police Force FC on Saturday last demolished Pakuri Jaguars FC with a 17 – 0 goal blitz at the Guyana Football...Kaieteur News – Just recently, the PPC determined that it does not have the authority to vitiate a contract which was... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]