Latest update April 25th, 2024 12:59 AM
Feb 24, 2015 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
No one has yet examined the implications of the proposed APNU/AFC marriage for shared governance in Guyana. This column proposes to begin an examination of this issue.
There are many variations of shared governance. The PPP had its version. It believed that in order for shared governance to emerge there must be the building of trust. In other words, there must be courtship before there is marriage.
The PPP was never comfortable with the idea of shared governance. For the party that connoted power sharing. Originally the PPP had embraced an idea of participatory democracy. Later it developed its own model of power-sharing. It called that model, inclusive democracy. The PPPC boasted that Guyana has the most inclusive constitution in the Caribbean and that it has implemented in Guyana a participatory and inclusive system of democracy.
The emphasis on the word “democracy” is not accidental. Democracy as it is known today emphasizes competition amongst the parties. In effect therefore whenever parties speak about either an inclusive or participatory democracy they are in referring to a system which retains the element of competitive politics.
The PNCR on the other hand, felt that these models of inclusive and participatory democracy were superficial and did not get to the heart of the political problem facing the country. The PNCR was interested in a system of shared governance. This involved sharing of power at the highest common denominator, the government.
In the run-up to both the 2006 and 2011 elections APNU was keen on emphasizing that if it won power it would move towards this shared governance and that the People’s Progressive Party would be part of any power sharing government. APNU made it clear that any government it formed would include the PPP
APNU also recognized the indifference of the ruling PPPC towards such a system of government. It did not have confidence in the PPPC on its own coming around to this idea of shared governance. As such APNU made it clear that the only way this shared governance could be achieved was if APNU won the elections.
The winning of political power was the only means through which a system of shared governance would be achieved. This is according to APNU.
APNU did not win the 2011 elections. And as such it cannot be blamed for the fact that Guyana does not have a system of shared governance similar to the one it proposed. APNU however has never ditched this idea of shared governance.
One therefore would have expected that in moving towards a pre-election coalition with the AFC, A Partnership for National Unity would have sought to negotiate any such pact on the basis that any government that emerged from such a coalition would pursue the ideal of shared governance.
Instead of this what we have are promises of an inclusionary democracy. But this inclusionary democracy makes no accommodation for the PPPC. This is at odds with APNU’s 2011 position in which it had made it clear that if it won the elections, it would have formed a national unity government which would have included the PPP.
Its proposal for 2015 is for a government of APNU and the AFC with public positions, including that of the Speaker of the National Assembly, being handed out to persons it civil society. This offering of positions is what the APNU and the AFC propose as a system of inclusive democracy. We are therefore come full circle. From advocating a solid platform of shared governance, there is now a proposal for inclusive democracy.
This system of inclusive democracy is a discredited concept. Inclusive democracy is what the PPPC has long said it has implemented in Guyana and is committed to continuing. It is a system that invites non-partisan persons to come on board the government. This is what the PPP has long practised and used as evidence that it is inclusive.
The PPPC has however not been able to build a platform of national unity on the basis of inclusive democracy. Neither will the AFC or APNU.
Inclusive democracy ignores the elephant in the room. That elephant is ethnic insecurity and those who advanced the idea of shared governance were mindful of this elephant because they recognized that unless both of the major parties in Guyana, the PNCR and the PPP, were included in any government, there would continue to be an elephant standing in the corner.
Any post 2015 government of the APNU and the AFC will therefore be no different from the PPPC. APNU cannot claim that the coalition is necessary for a government of national unity because it has ditched the concept of shared governance for a PPP-styled inclusive democracy.
Jagdeo giving Exxon 102 cent to collect 2 cent.
Apr 25, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – The French Diplomatic Office in Guyana, in collaboration with the Guyana Olympic Association and UNICEF, hosted an exhibition on Tuesday evening at the...Kaieteur News – Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, persists in offering... 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]