SINCE March 2, the debate over power-sharing or shared governance as an alternative form of governance for Guyana has been raised anew.

President Granger recently weighed in on the issue by once again committing his six-party coalition to this alternative form of governance: “By formula — as has been laid out by my colleague Rupert Roopnaraine — people who win 51 per cent of the vote must not behave as if they won 100 per cent of the vote and people who only got 49 per cent of the vote must not be treated as if they got no per cent of the votes and, I live by that. I would like to see an inclusionary form of government.”

This debate over power-sharing goes as far back as 1961 when Sydney King (now Eusi Kwayana) proposed what he referred to as “Joint Premiership” as a pre-independence pact aimed at avoiding conflict over which of the two major parties and by extension the two major ethnic groups would govern an independent Guyana. As Kwayana explained at the time, “We have known all along that the Indians would not trust a black leader and that the Africans would not trust an Indian leader. We could see then that any attempt of the one to rule the other will lead to blood baths.” Four decades later he explained, “I proposed a solution which had not been heard of before, a joint premiership between the rulers of the Indian and African races. It was a solution, so far as I was concerned, posed by the social and political logic of the situation then before us, and not by me.”

The ”logic” that Kwayana spoke about is still with us six decades later. There is still resistance by the major ethnic groups to be ruled by leaders of the opposite group. Despite many positive developments in race relations, it must be admitted that after the 28-year rule of the PNC followed by 23 years of PPP control of government, our country is as divided as it was in 1961. But while the PNC has since 2002 made a commitment to shared inclusive governance, the PPP has consistently rejected the idea. It has preferred to hold stoutly to the system of one-party rule, which in our circumstances is easily translated into ethnic dominance of one ethnicity.

This is what prompted former president Desmond Hoyte and PNC leader to proclaim in 2002: “An adjusted system of governance for our country — whether we call it ‘power-sharing,’ ‘shared governance’ or any other name — appears to be an idea whose time has come. It could hardly be claimed that our present arrangements are working in the best interests of the country and its citizens. The imperfections obtrude everywhere and are a serious obstacle to national cohesion and development. In the circumstances, the imperative of constitutional adjustment appears to be unavoidable. We cannot stand on the seashore and bid the waves recede. I suggest, therefore, that we as a party give careful and anxious consideration to the insistent voices that are calling for constitutional and political reform.”

The PPP on the other hand has not been as forthcoming on the issue. While Dr Jagan declared in 1988 that winner-takes-all politics must go, on assuming power he did nothing to turn that into reality. Since his death in 1997, the PPP has put up several barriers to power-sharing. They rejected the PNC’s offers following Hoyte’s declaration. They have argued that the two parties need to build trust before committing to sharing governance. This view ignores the fact that power-sharing is essentially a solution to the lack of trust between parties and the groups they represent.

Upon taking office in 2015 President David Granger immediately reached out to the PPP to begin talks towards a joint government, but the party did not accept. As President Granger recently reminded the nation: “At the start of my tenure I did invite the People’s Progressive Party to discuss a form of shared governance and were I to be re-elected after the declaration of the elections commission, I will do the same again. I believe in inclusionary democracy and the PPP is part of the future of Guyana.”

Not so for the PPP whose leader Bharrat Jagdeo poured cold water on Granger’s apparent olive branch by asking rhetorically if “anybody would want to sit in the same government with some of these guys who are making such patently false allegations and put the country in turmoil.” In other words, even as the country nervously awaits the declaration of the results of the March 2 election, the PPP continues to advocate for one-party domination.

This publication, aware of the need for peace and harmony, supports initiatives aimed at holding our country together as a cohesive nation. Against that backdrop we throw our weight behind the President’s call for a power-sharing form of government. We feel it is the only sensible proposal on the table. It is clear to us that the winner-takes-all majoritarian model has outlived its usefulness. We therefore urge mass support for President Granger’s proposal which has the support of our leading scholars and political activists, including veterans Kwayana and Moses Bhagwan, whose letter to the press a few weeks ago sparked the new round of debates. The time has come to call a spade a spade. Guyana comes first.