THE more I learn about the model of power-sharing advocated by Dr David Hinds, the more I fear that political, social and economic  development of Guyana will not move forward because of the certain deadlock ‘games’ which one party will play if that model is adopted. In his letter he states that trust is not a criterion for power-sharing; “Trust is not a prerequisite for effective governance… When will we know there is trust between two parties [and] Who cares? (SN, May 30th) “Trust is not a prerequisite for effective governance”). Implied in this statement is a frightening admission that the Indian-dominated party (PPP/C) should not expect an African-Guyanese dominated party (PNCR) to be trustworthy in a power-sharing arrangement.
He continues about whether trust should exist between two parties; “Do we know if Nick Clegg [of the Liberal Democratic Party] trusts David Cameron (of the Tories)?” But there is a difference between these two parties in The UK and the two parties in Guyana. In Guyana, one party rigged several elections except the first which brought it into power and the last which it lost because of international pressure for fair elections, while that is not the case in the UK.
In Guyana, it is the party which was involved in rigging elections for just under 28 years, which is now asking for a change in the political system which it formulated and implemented when in power, so as to get it back into power. It is the party which cheated the other parties. Although this fact exists Dr Hinds is adamant that there is no need for trust between the parties.
He further asks, “does Barrack Obama trust Hilary Clinton?” If President Obama did not trust Secretary of State Clinton he would have fired her. He is her boss; there is no power-sharing here. And they are from the same Democratic Party.
This leads me to the methodology which the learned doctor used in making his arguments. He offers a definition of power-sharing as “an arrangement in which hostile parties come together to form a joint government based on an agreed programme.” Yet, the examples he offered of power-sharing are not between hostile ‘parties’. The Tories or Liberal Democrats are not hostile parties. Obama and Clinton are not ‘hostile’ to each other. Such ways of reasoning are not helpful.
Also, if the parties come up with an ‘agreed programme’ but there is no trust, what then is the purpose of the agreement if either party can simply breach it? The agreement will have no value. It seems to me, that it will be unwise for anyone to simply enter into an agreement with another when the other person has cheated them in the past. The doctor seems to disagree with me.
The learned doctor might be able to persuade us if he rethinks the elements of his power-sharing model in detail, instead of stating them when responding in an ad hoc way to points raised by other analysts.