Challenges, failures and the governing Coalition

THERE has been a lot of talk recently about constitutional reform, but there has hardly been any mention of the most important obstacle to national cohesion in Guyana — the inability of our major political parties to arrive at a consensus on the way forward.

I mention constitutional reform and national cohesion together because, in one sense, they are related; but, in another sense, the latter is a constant challenge that does not have to wait on the former. In fact, if there is some progress on national cohesion, it could propel constitutional reform, largely because such reform would invariably require consensus on the part of the two political factions.

It should, by now, be clear to us that while multiple factors can explain Guyana’s socio-economic and political difficulties over the last five decades of independence, the one that is most overpowering is the seemingly chronic ethno-political divide. Our political leaderships from the 1950s to the present have been incapable of mustering the courage and the will to do what their counterparts in similar situations managed to do. In recent times, leaders in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya, when faced with difficult situations, were able to rise above their narrow politics and reach for a political solution in the form of political power-sharing, if only temporarily. At some point, we in Guyana would have to face the fact that the greatness we confer on our two major political founder-leaders is severely diminished by the inability to find a workable solution to the most pressing challenge of their time.

I still believe that one of the most compelling factors that influenced the rise to office of the present Government was the very fact of its being constituted as a partnership. Despite the mass instinct for tribal politics among Guyanese, there resides a simultaneous instinct for political joint-ness. The dialectics of unity and disunity are a fact of seriously fractured societies, I make bold to argue. It is whether the leaderships they throw up are enlightened enough to seize moments of hope and turn them into possibilities for reconciliation, consensus and national cohesion.

The Coalition gave hope to half of the population that the long night of ethno-political despair and disrepair could turn into a bright morning in which all Guyanese could be secure. From the APNU to the APNU+AFC coalition, the leaders showed that compromise and courage could lead to adequate, though not perfect, outcomes. Yet, one year after the electoral victory, we have not been able to move to the next step.

The breakthrough of the partnership has been quickly followed by the hardening of ethnocentric instincts, as shown by the results of the Local Government elections. It is the continuing paradox that our leaderships, activists and scholars seem so incapable of working through. Many of us take the easiest way out by denying that a problem exists, and by sheltering under the customary empty rhetoric of one-ness. No wonder our Jubilee observances were more about fun and partying and less about reflections.

The President has laudably held out the olive branch to the PPP about becoming part of a broader partnership in Government, but the PPP promptly declined. Therein lies part of the challenge. History repeats itself. In 1961, the PPP rejected calls for joint premiership, only to call for it when it saw power slipping away in 1963-64. It would renew the call in 1977 when the doors to power were being undemocratically shut. By then the holders of power were thoroughly drunk.

Similarly, the PNC would move to power-sharing in 1985 when its undemocratic hold on power became unsustainable. Again, it would wait until the PPP had entrenched the most obscene Government in our history before it came out for power sharing in 2002. By then it was too late; the other side had become politically mad.

If that history tells us anything, the PPP would have to lose another two elections before it reaches for power-sharing again. It is not that our political leaders are philosophically in love with majoritarianism, it is the unchecked power that flows from it to which they are wedded. So, it seems that perhaps the road to power-sharing lies in checking official power; but it is the very politicians who would have to consent to checked power. So we are back to square one.

What do we do? It seems to me that while we wait on the PPP to consent to a broadening of the current partnership, the APNU+AFC should work on deepening the one it has forged. I am arguing that if we do not deepen the partnership as represented by the APNU+AFC Coalition, and give it broader meaning, it will quickly deteriorate into a one-party outfit; many parties but one-party behaviour.

One of the worrying weaknesses of the Coalition is that it functions almost solely as Government. For all intents and purposes, there is no coalition outside of Government — the Cabinet is the only working institution. This is worrying for two reasons: First, the Government does not sufficiently benefit from the input of ideas from the partners outside of officialdom. Second, the parties, which are the links to the people, are not adequately empowered to take the Government’s message and agenda to the people. If the Coalition is not effective as a partnership, then it would find it difficult to sustain a wider power-sharing government.

More of Dr. Hinds’ writings and commentaries can be found on his YouTube Channel Hinds’ Sight: Dr. David Hinds’ Guyana-Caribbean Politics, and on his website www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com. Send comments to dhinds6106@aol.com