…calls ring out for gov’t, opposition to sit down for talks

By Ariana Gordon
SINCE Guyana gained independence some 49 years ago, the promise of a unity government has always been on the cards, but up until now, it remains an elusive dream.

With the ascension of the A Partnership for National Unity+ Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) coalition to office following the May 11 elections, President David Granger, in keeping with a promise of an inclusive government, announced that his administration is open to unity talks with the People’s Progressive Party (PPP). But he is yet to receive any positive response. The government has entrusted Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, a former PPP Executive to lead the talks.
Former President now Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo in a meeting with President Granger soon after he was elected has said that the Opposition will approach the talks at their own time, at their own pace. Unity talks and unity government are nothing new to Prime Minister Nagamootoo. He had worked with late

President and founding member of the PPP Dr Cheddi Jagan in the 1970s on the issue of a national front government. The PPP under Dr Jagan had an interest in unity government and many believe that his vision and work for a united Guyana should not be squandered.
The PPP’s silence on the government’s open invitation on unity talks has caused disquietude to some in the political circle. Among them is former Speaker of the National Assembly and PPP Executive Ralph Ramkarran. “An offer made by government to any rational group should be seriously considered,” he told the Guyana Chronicle, contending that the refusal of the PPP thus far to head into talks with the government is turning out to be a missed opportunity to make good of a promise it had at one time advocated.

ON THEIR AGENDA
National unity, Mr Ramkarran pointed out has been on the PPP agenda since 1955. In the 1970s, the PPP had proposed a national front government, but the

proposal did not gain traction with the People’s National Congress (PNC) administration. But, he said the PPP had been consistent in seeking to engage and discuss with their political rivals the issue of national unity, and is now surprised that they have apparently “turned their backs” on the matter. This approach by the PPP, he said does not augur well for a united Guyana.
However, with the administration just over six-month old, Mr Ramkarran said they will have to be cautious, pointing out that the PPP’s refusal to engage on unity talks thus far should not at this time be dismissed as a missed opportunity. The offer is still on the table, and Mr Ramkarran is urging his former comrades to talk to the government on the important matter as it will show that the have Guyana’s future as a priority.
In September, PPP General Secretary Clement Rohee said his party made no agreement with the APNU+AFC government to discuss national unity while noting that his party was not comfortable with the offer.
“…The APNU+AFC must be aware that the PPP is in no way desperate to engage both the APNU and the AFC. This will be tantamount to a double kiss of death for the PPP; a reality it cannot ignore,” Rohee said a PPP press briefing at Freedom House Robb Street. According to him, “cooperation within the parliamentary structure and arrangements cannot be avoided but engagement with the APNU+AFC outside of Parliament is clearly political and there is no guarantee that agreements reached will find their way in the appropriate body to make them legally binding.”
Nagamootoo, a long-standing member of the PPP before he parted company with the party in 2011, said the leadership of the PPP has demonstrated pettiness, greed, corruption and arrogance that Dr Cheddi Jagan, party founder fought against.

ALWAYS COMMITTED
“I have always been committed to the formation in this country of broad coalitions that work for common goals and I believe someday this country will see and must see a government of national unity,” Nagamootoo had said in 2011.
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Rashleigh Jackson, weighing in on the national unity talks, said all stakeholders must be involved in the process. “If the major political stakeholders decide on national unity, those who stay out should be judged as not serious about national unity,” Mr Jackson said, noting that that “if major stakeholders have doubts, they should set forth the necessary conditions for national unity”.
He continued: “If you don’t talk, nothing will be achieved,” while emphasising the importance of compromise in going forward on the matter. For Mr Jackson, a grand conversation on how to achieve national unity is needed and it should involve all political parties, religious groups, and other stakeholders of society.
“It is a question of will and attitude,” he said, stressing that all Guyanese have an investment in Guyana’s future and talks on national unity should be priority. Veteran trade unionist Lincoln Lewis agreed with him, but said it should be made clear what “national unity” means. Some believe it means sharing Cabinet responsibilities with the Opposition, some Mr Lewis said ought not to happen.

NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
“The Constitution does not make provision for that,” he said, adding that Article 13 of the Constitution does not make provision for a government of national unity. Article 13 states: “The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organisations in the management and decision- making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.”
The trade unionist believes that the laws have to be “deepened” to deal with the concept of national unity as the Constitution makes provision for the people to elect various tiers that speak to inclusionary democracy — national, regional and local governments.
“The national and regional are seen as political groupings which saw the divide of 32/33 seats representing the major political parties…. In seven regions, citizens decided that the PPP will manage the people; three regions were given to APNU-AFC,” he said.
Mr Lewis also reminded that power sharing is not an issue for politicians but one for the citizenry to decide. “National unity must be clearly defined… apart from a clear definition, there needs to be laws put in place to strengthen what the Constitution says.”
The 1980 Constitution of Guyana makes provision for a minority leader but the revised Constitution speaks to an Opposition Leader. “The spirit and content put the groups as adversaries rather than seeing the minority leader in government, the leader of the Opposition as part of the Executive,” the trade unionist pointed out.
Political commentator and former Housing, Health and Education Minister under the PPP Government, Dr Henry Jeffrey also believes that the APNU+AFC government needs to be clear on what it means by “national unity”. “The government needs to make it clear what it has in mind….It might get the Guyanese people to put pressure on the PPP,” Dr Jeffrey told this publication.
He said too that the term “national unity” is too elusive and suggested that government writes the PPP explaining what exactly it means and what it is looking for. “Write them, put something out in writing … let them decline then,” he said, contending that it would be unfortunate if the rejected the talks. President David Granger at his swearing in ceremony in May extended a hand of national unity to the PPP while stating that the time has come for Guyana to move forward.