Dear Editor,
THE Guyana Chronicle, in its May 27, 2020 edition, carried an article captioned, “ …President recommits to inclusionary democracy if re-elected … holds out hope that PPP will join discussions.” The article quoted Dr Irfaan Ali, the PPP/C Presidential Candidate’s position on inclusionary democracy/ shared governance. If quoted correctly, Mr Ali demonstrated a shallow understanding of what has been and is the major historical challenge (deficiency) in Guyana’s governance system.

Chronicle article: “Questioned on his thoughts on inclusionary government on May 20. 2020, PPP/C Presidential Candidate, Irfaan Ali, said that he sees this as other parties and stakeholders being part of the decision-making process.”
Mr Ali needs to be reminded that being part of the decision-making process is not the same as being in the executive/ government/ cabinet.

The article continues, (Irfaan): “We have seen reforms in the parliamentary system, we have seen how useful the Public Accounts Committee can be, which is shared with the opposition [and] the Economic Service Committee. With different sectors coming on stream, you have to find a model that allows that oversight responsibility to even go beyond the political system to bring in other stakeholders from civil society.”

In the above, Ali stated his views on the usefulness of our present parliamentary reforms and recommended that we go beyond the political system to bring in other stakeholders from civil society. My question: Are you seeing oversight as the same as exercising executive authority/power?

In the article, Ali adds; “At the executive level we will allow ideas; we will allow participation, not only political parties but civil society, by the private sector, by as many stakeholders as possible.”
While Ali is repeating himself, he is also going around in circles. He has said nothing new. The position articulated is fundamentally what we have from 1992 to the present. In doing so, he fails (either deliberately or unconsciously) to realise that in spite of what improvements have been made, our system is still in form and practice, “winner take all.” This is the classic playbook of his boss, Bharat Jagdeo, which is to dangle a few economic charms before the opposition, co-opt prominent members of the “other” race groups and call it power sharing or shared governance. We have not introduced “executive power-sharing”, neither through a party-to-party agreement or constitutional reform to make it mandatory. I make this point for the benefit of readers, not for the political leadership since they are more informed on these matters than they often profess in their public discourse.

I end this brief intervention on the current discussion on governance by stating that it is time that we as a nation put an end to winner-take-all governance system. And we have to stop the destructive “political opportunism” that we have practiced for more than half of a century when dealing with this matter. Whatever we choose to call it: executive power-sharing, inclusionary democracy, or shared governance, if at the end of elections the government coming out of those elections excludes the loser, we have not addressed the challenge before us.
Regards
Tacuma Ogunseye