FOR the first time in history, Guyana has a minority government.  So far, this is as much as we know and I have not seen up to now any clear and comprehensive explanation in the public domain as to how precisely this sort of arrangement would work.
For now, I am going to leave any guesswork on what is going to happen over the next five months or next five years to far more informed and involved commentators.  In not knowing something, I did what I usually do, i.e., go and see what I can pick up in a crash course on the internet.  I didn’t have to check very far for information and several of the first hits on Google gave me  fair insight into what it means in a general sense.
Essentially, a minority government is an arrangement wherein one political party in an election has enough votes to win the right to govern the country, but not enough to pass laws in whatever law-making mechanism exists, usually in the form of a senate or parliament.  Since the passage of laws usually requires a minimum of 51 percent of votes in that mechanism, it means that the governing party – since it needs to execute policy within the confines of the law, and since some laws do need to be changed from time to time – needs the opposition to agree to its plans and legislate accordingly.
Outside of the basic info presented, one document stood out in that it answered some of the fundamental questions I had with regard to how realistic a minority government is. Produced by the UK think thank, Institute For Government, the document – based on a detailed study of minority governments around the world – is called, interestingly enough, “Making Minority Government Work: Hung parliaments and the challenges for Westminster and Whitehall”.

I haven’t had time to read through the almost 100 pages, and I might never have the time to, but fortunately the authors undertook a neat summary of their recommendations at the very beginning. There are three of these recommendations, called “lessons” in the publication, that I want to focus on for this article.
The first one is directed to the government in power and it says…
“Minority government has some advantages over coalitions: single party control, greater policy coherence, quicker decision making. But a minority government cannot govern in a majoritarian way. It must accept the likelihood of frequent parliamentary defeats, and prepare the media and the public for them, so they are not seen as confidence issues. To avoid being blown off course, it must set out a clear strategy and set of long term goals.”
In my mind, this illustrates the need for the sort of creativity in government that governments with a parliamentary majority are not obligated to develop.  I don’t believe that any minority government would see their position as an ideal arrangement, but the fact that it is a possible arrangement, the need is there to develop a strategy for a minority scenario.  How they successfully execute that strategy and still govern properly and competently is a good test for whether they can be considered successful.
The publication has lessons for the opposition as well…
“Prepare before the election for negotiations immediately afterwards. Consider the alternatives before entering into coalition: supply and confidence agreements may help a party preserve its distinct identity. It is difficult to co-ordinate ‘the opposition’ against the government, or to bring the government down, but opposition parties can influence government policy through bilateral deals.”
What is meant by supply and confidence deals is basically an arrangement, with varying degrees of formality, wherein the opposition agrees to work with a government on specific areas for specific concessions over a specific period of time.  The opposition in a minority government is therefore in a stronger position to involve themselves in defining government policies, even though they are not actually responsible for the execution of those policies. Unique to Guyana’s situation, as a “first timer”, it can be a springboard for a new type of political engagement and governance which can give meaning to the phrase, working together for the good of all. Of course, therein lies both an advantage and disadvantage when it comes to campaigning in that if the policy works, the government will have equal claim to it. The situation will also for the first time give the opposition an opportunity to do fulfil some of its promises as outlined in their party’s manifesto.
The final ‘lesson’ I want to examine is the one which is directed at the Parliament and which says:
“Parliament can become stronger under minority government, but cannot make policy or force the government to do anything against its will. Parliament may take longer to pass bills, and amend them more heavily, but the overall volume of legislation is unlikely to diminish greatly. Parliamentary reform to reduce the government’s dominance of parliamentary business will not happen without a clear agenda and champion who can make it happen.”
You would note that the authors treat government, opposition and parliament as separate entities for the purposes of their analysis.  Indeed, while the government and the opposition do constitute parliament, the presumption is that there are extra-parliamentary inputs into government; and that parliament should be seen as an entity in many ways separate from government as well as the various political parties.  In my view, what they are implying is that parliament is greater than the whole of its parts and a minority government represents a specific mode of parliament which should have its own natural goals and objectives. 
It should be noted that the latter part of the recommendation which calls for a “champion” to drive a clear agenda does not say where that champion should come from.  The underlying lesson in my view is that a hung parliament, a parliament in which the governing party has a minority, is a chance for that parliament not to fail but to evolve.  In closing, as I said in the beginning of this piece, the nature of Guyana’s situation is currently changing and the peculiar aspects of that are going to define how our political leadership goes about the business of government.