It is now official. After weeks of stalling, the PPP has now formally rejected an invitation from the government to open talks toward a power sharing government. The party, through its General Secretary and via a press statement, reported that the Central Committee at a recent meeting decided that such talks with the government was not feasible in the current atmosphere. The atmosphere the party refers to is grounded in its perception of hostility towards it by the government. According to the PPP “the continuous witch-hunting, arbitrary dismissals and brazen termination of contracts of longstanding government employees and public servants, labelling party leaders and former government ministers as ‘thieves,’ the party’s membership is neither in the mood nor supportive at this time, to engage in any national unity talks with the APNU+AFC.”
While this move by the PPP is not altogether surprising, we feel that it represents a backward step for the party and the country. It is not often that a victorious party or parties invite the losers to join it in a unity government, particular so soon after the election.
In our case this is the first time in three decades that we have had such an opening—the last instance being the 1985 initiative by the then Burnham-led PNC to open talks with the Jagan-led PPP. It is unfortunate that the PPP has turned its back on this latest initiative. At a time when the country faces tremendous challenges, both internally and externally, a national government that represents all of the people is the best form of governance.
In that regard, the PPP has dealt the nation a serious body-blow. For six decades, Guyana has suffered from a political polarisation that has had far-reaching ethnic consequences. Yet, despite persistent vocal rhetoric of unity, our major political parties and leaders have not been able to muster the political courage to do what countries with similar ailments have done. The PPP is perhaps more culpable in this regard. Since it return to power in 1992, it has taken an aggressive anti-power sharing stance, which run counter to its stance while in opposition.
It was hoped that its return to the opposition benches would have prompted a change in tactic, if not strategy. But as political commentators such as Dr. Henry Jeffery and Dr. David Hinds have contended, the party has become mired in a culture of dominance that has not been dimmed by defeat. This is a very counter-productive mode in a country where ethno-political passions tend to be quite intense. In such situations enlightened leadership often makes a difference.
This latest PPP action hardly reflects enlightened leadership. In fact, a case can be made that the party as taken an anti-national stance. While we are not oblivious to the PPP’s contention that poor relations between the government and itself present a challenge for a power sharing undertaking, we reject the argument that that is enough reason to run away from the larger challenge. The irony is that a power sharing government stands a better chance at repairing such relations than the disengagement policy adopted by the PPP. If the PNC and the WPA can co-exist in the same partnership and government, then the PPP’s case is on weak ground.
So where do we go from here? The Granger government must be commended for its political courage; it shows that there is some political character and morality in its ranks. While it must continue to hold out the proverbial olive branch to the PPP, it must simultaneously find ways to govern as inclusively as possible. We feel the PPP has left the coalition with no choice but to go directly to the Indian Guyanese masses and make its case for a National Government. For, once again, our political elites have put their political egos above the well-being of the nation.