OVER the past week or so, the political atmosphere in Guyana has reached a temperature the heights of which is only, in my humble opinion, rivaled by the scorching heat of electioneering.

While much has flown back and forth on the specific merits and demerits of the cases presented by each side of the legislature, I want to frame the current heated impasse against the backdrop of what I wrote a while ago with regard to the present parliamentary configuration, and the challenges it places on moving ahead with the business of the people:
“….what it boils down to is individual political resolve and the capacity for our political representatives to rise above partisan interests and to revert to the reason that the vast majority of them entered politics for in the fist place, i.e., to serve the people of Guyana to the best of their ability.”
In the present situation, there are a couple of things that I find lacking; approaches that, to my mind, would have prevented us being stuck in the quagmire in which we are presently.  The first is political prudence.
Now, I am aware that the temptation to accrue and expend political capital in a tenuous environment would indeed be a strong one; and the more contentious the issue, the greater the possibility of reaping a windfall from risky gambling.  Therefore, often we have seen issues that could have been negotiated behind closed doors and with cool, rational heads prevailing are now being shouted from respective soapboxes.

The problem with this approach is that the pronouncements made in the public domain, however erroneous or uninformed they might be, subsequently trap politicians and their respective parties in uncompromising public postures.  Nothing is wrong with taking a public gamble on soapbox politics, but every seasoned and successful gambler always has their mind on what is ultimately at stake; and one would hope that with our political representatives, the prize is always the public good.
My position is that there are some things that our politicians should be less eager to hold a press conference on; that is, until all avenues for negotiation and consensus have been exhausted, successfully or not.  In addition to this, what should also be made clear is that the roles each party plays in those negotiations — government and opposition — as defined by the Constitution and parliamentary configuration.
Another thing is, there seems to be too much politics in our political arena today, particularly in the period I’ve referenced.  I mean: Everyone who knows me, knows that I have a craving for chocolate bars, but there are some types of bars that I can’t stand, simply because the amount of chocolate in them is too high, to the point of being bitter.
While political positions are necessary for the management of the country, as I have repeatedly stated in these columns, there are certain issues decided by our politicians, in which the amount of active political input should be kept to a minimum.
Over the years of writing this column, I have variably identified some of them: Military threats, health crises, national disaster, rampant crime.  What I’ve found in writing this column, is that there is one common theme running through all of them: Citizen security.  What I’ve found is that the current source of controversy in the public and in parliament, this being the provision of electrical energy, has implications for every single area.  The provision of a reliable and sustainable supply of electricity is necessary for the functioning of army equipment, for electrical equipment, for ambulances and refrigerators, for street lights and surveillance equipment; indeed, our need for electricity is perhaps the universal need decision-making upon which should possess zero political content, and in which only sound economic and technical considerations should be factors.
Which brings me to another area of concern.  Now, while earlier I cautioned against imprudent political pronouncements, this should be taken to mean that the public does not deserve a clear and comprehensive education on any and every issue that is debated in its supposed interests.
I don’t consider myself to be a slow learner by most measures, except probably when it comes to my son’s videogames or my daughter’s attempts at explaining the intricacies of social media. That said, in the past two weeks or so, I think not only has political wrangling raised a storm of dust on a crucial issue, but there was not enough light shed on it, in the view of the layman, in the first place.  Now, I understand that our lawmakers cannot spend time – and realistically do not have the capacity – to translate every single piece of public legislation at a level the man on the street or even the woman in the office can comprehend; that said, there can be some mechanism, run most likely out of the Office of the Speaker, that gives us some non-partisan bullet points on crucial pieces of legislation.   This could take various forms, like a television show explaining such issues, or a Facebook page, all of which can educate and stimulate debate by the general public in a clear and non-antagonistic fashion.  An adequately informed public should be central to the decision-making process engaged in by our political representatives.
Finally, and this is simply the seed of an idea, I think the best thing that our political leadership can do is find meaningful ways to actively demonstrate that, after the passionate contest that elections tend to be, cooperation for the public good is possible.  For example, there should be bipartisan community outreaches where people get to directly air their concerns and give their feedback to government and opposition legislators at the same time.
In the final analysis, I can repeat my conclusion and recommendation of over a year and a half ago and have it find not less but a greater resonance particularly at this time.  That, what I’m suggesting in essence is a system of truly participatory democracy where the lawmakers undertake their work in a transparent and accountable manner under the scrutiny of an informed and interested public, with everything from the findings of parliamentary subcommittees to the definitive results of tripartite talks presented in a uniform, consensus-based manner to the people.  Only then do I believe we can find enough traction to move forward, and into a better future for all of us.