Pull Quote: ‘…many of these advocates should understand that there may be governments in multiethnic societies, without a power-sharing matrix, that work toward meeting the interests and needs of all ethnic groups; where development is a prominent political feature; and where the foundations of such governments are guided by the principles of democracy’
THERE IS no significant evidence-based data on marginalization; for this reason, a power- sharing arrangement, intending to reduce marginalization, would be flawed, and would do ‘nada’ for development. Right now, as the election season moves apace, the predictable measures for accessing political power through the back door begin to acquire the usual contemptuous prominence in the dailies, the private electronic media, and cyberspace. Advocates of these banal measures arrogate to themselves a divine right to an audience as well as a place on the prized political stage. I thought in the 21st Century, democratic elections determine the winner of such coveted political prize.

Power-sharing — or its alias, shared governance, third political force, coalition — are some of these prosaic measures that trespass and pester the mind, but only hit the deck now after their familiar hibernation between elections.

Power-sharing advocates believe that this government marginalizes a large cross-section of people, and the operational Westminster-style political system with its accompanying institutions, using a zero sum power game, where winner takes all, reinforces this economic and social disadvantage. The fact of the matter is that there is no pure Westminster-style government in Guyana. And power-sharing advocates would find it painful to accept a comprehensive database of statistical evidence, convincingly showing a reasonable social distribution of ethnics in the public service.

A previous study, focusing the research question on the status of ethnic marginalization, found insignificant African marginalization in the public service; power-sharing advocates responded to say that many Africans in senior positions in the public service were ‘tokens’. Well, that research had a research question that focused on the distribution of ethnic marginalization, and that was its sole purpose. At any rate, those who still believe that many senior Africans are ‘tokens’ in the public service are free to conduct such a research. Furthermore, those Africans referred to as ‘tokens’ may perceive that reference as ill-conceived, unfortunate, and an insult to their professionalism and integrity.

Undoubtedly, most multiethnic societies will have pockets of disadvantage, and invariably, the disadvantage permeates the full ethnic range. For instance, in the case of Guyana, casual observations suggest that the prevalence rate of unemployment among recent University of Guyana graduates impact all ethnic groups. For this reason, governmental remedies require a focus on reducing or eliminating this disadvantage across the ethnic range, particularly, as a government’s sole moral responsibility is to address the plight of the poor and vulnerable.

Besides, no power-sharing advocate has demonstrated how a power-sharing political structure could minimize marginalization and discrimination, which may be outcomes of ethnocentrism, prejudice, and entrenched class inequalities. In addition, a perception out there is that many power-sharing advocates pour out rhetoric that transparently matches their political aspirations. Furthermore, Guyana’s multiple party system and diversified ideologies would make power-sharing a non-starter, and it would remain ineffectual. Nonetheless, those power- sharing advocates may still wish to administer research on what they perceive as ‘token’ Africans in the public service.

Look, many of these advocates should understand that there may be governments in multiethnic societies, without a power-sharing matrix, that work toward meeting the interests and needs of all ethnic groups; where development is a prominent political feature; and where the foundations of such governments are guided by the principles of democracy. Nevertheless, such sustained rhetoric may signify that power-sharing advocates reject democracy and development.

Given that democracy and ethnic equitability in reward allocations prevail in Guyana (and there may be some exceptions), there is then little need for constant rhetoric on the political ethnic arithmetic, which may retard development. And many developing nations need developing! Sometimes, I wonder if these advocates use the ethnic arithmetic matrix to impede development. Anyway, to extricate oneself from these power-sharing distractions which contribute ‘nada’ to development, Professor Henry Mintzberg provided a conceptual ‘development’ framework; this requires critical review.

Of course, there is always indigenous development for all ethnic groups, with its inside-in focus. Over the years, many countries also played around with planned development, with a top-down focus where the government was the driver. Nevertheless, the fall of the Soviet Union and its political system diminished the significance of planned development, and heralded the emergence of globalization, with an outside-in focus; there was the belief that the native governments should not be part of development, and that domestic and foreign corporations (multinationals) would assist in development.

This was music to ears of free-market economists, multinationals, and overseas governments, where in many cases, the developing world became the dumping ground for their manufactured products. Globalization is imperfect; and it is unfortunate that the developing world continues to see globalization as development, when globalization demeans its social traditions and everything ‘local’, and enables the local business elite to assimilate the beliefs and values of globalization. In fact, while socialism and communism were seen as economic colonialism, today, it is free-trade’s turn.

Mintzberg argued that people depend on economic forces as well as on social and political forces; nonetheless, people began to view economic forces as more important than social and political forces because they erroneously thought that capitalism destroyed socialism, where the free-market became more important than government controls. Capitalism did not succeed; the balance between capitalism and socialism prevailed, making room for all ethnic groups.

The power-sharing rhetoric should be redirected toward promoting development vis-а-vis sustaining the balance between capitalism and socialism. Moreover, the power-sharing rhetoric is flawed, in so far as its advocates have a political self-interest without an apparent structured constituency, and the fact that a power-sharing structure hardly has remedial capacity for marginalization and discrimination. What good then is this rhetoric for development?