By Stabroek News– There has been no term more tossed about in the political sphere in recent times than ‘shared governance’, by which is more properly meant ‘shared executive governance’. It has been trumpeted as the panacea for all our constitutional ills, which will reduce if not eliminate the political cum ethnic tensions which so debilitate us and inhibit the possibility of rational government.
Judging from the way it voted in March, the electorate is not necessarily persuaded of the advantages of this arrangement; it was, after all, the small parties which for the most part were promoting the idea, and they did very poorly, a joinder of three of them securing only one seat.
Various writers, including to our letter columns, have pointed out that there is no trust between the PPP/C and APNU. In fact, the situation is worse now than it was two years ago, and there can be no provisions for the sharing of power if they are not underpinned by a measure of trust; for obvious reasons it simply would not work. Furthermore, the two sides do not want to share power and will no doubt go to some lengths to avoid that outcome. No one has made more obvious his autarchic predisposition and his determination to avoid collaborating with the opposition as it then was, even when that was constitutionally required, than former President David Granger. Short of a personality transformation his attitude is unlikely to change.
It is true that APNU+AFC prior to accepting the declaration of the last election result had proposed discussions about shared governance. That was just a last desperate attempt, however, to prevent the winning party from acceding to office and allowing the caretakers some form of power. Even if, for the sake of argument, it had been implemented, it would not have succeeded because in the end Mr Granger would have tried to make sure he retained control, and the compromise would have broken down.
But there is something more important. The PPP/C understands very well that it needs the Indigenous vote in order to achieve power, and therefore has no intention of allowing any kind of Indigenous political party room to evolve. Mr Lenox Shuman will find that he has his work cut out for him. Apart from naming five Indigenous representatives to its parliamentary complement, the party has wasted no time in re-appointing the 200 Indigenous workers who were dismissed by the previous government on its accession. They were dismissed because their function was to perform political work for the PPP/C in their communities. Now they are back, along, one presumes, with Freedom House’s carrot and stick approach in the hinterland. The current government won’t go for shared governance because it doesn’t think it needs to, and most fundamental constitutional reforms require a two-thirds majority in the House, if not in a few instances a referendum.
The last election was fought with a certain amount of desperation because both sides thought that whoever won office could stay in power for a long stretch because of the oil money. Even although the parties were still committed to helping their own constituency first, they operated with the economic assumption that a rising tide lifts all boats. One suspects, however, that the electorate was a great deal more cynical than it was given credit for, and that the supposed oil bonanza was not in the forefront of voters’ minds when they went to mark their ballots.
Unfortunately shared governance does not prevent corruption. As the case of Lebanon has demonstrated, it can even make it worse. There the different antagonistic groups making up the former government simply purloined from their slice of the pie. In a situation too where there would be no official opposition in the House, there would be no political entity which could ask the necessary questions and apply pressure on a range of issues, and not just corruption. In a democracy that is plainly dangerous. An autocratic shared government is no better than a single party one.
In the end, a clean society depends not on shared governance but on a number of autonomous, well-manned institutions with appropriate powers which are independent of political interference, such as the Audit Office and Procurement Commission, to cite just the two obvious ones amid a number of others. It also presupposes an effective, honest police force and an independent judiciary.
All of which does not mean to say that we are not in urgent need of constitutional reform. We are. But there needs to be a public discussion on the kinds of changes to our constitution we would like to see now, bearing in mind that this is a complicated society which is probably in a transitional state. If there is enough public pressure the two Cyclops-like parties may be forced to accede to the proposals. It just has to be remembered that constitutional reform is not the same as shared governance.
Comments
Simple Simon says
It’s co-operation not collaboration that is required.
For all parties “trust” once removed is almost impossible to re-instate.
In all relationships trust is as neccessary
as belief itself. A United guyana is not an impossible dream.
A United guyana is the only way forward.
United we stand
Decided we fail.
Forever the optimist
Kamtan
As pointed out in the editorial published in Stabroek News, the PPP has been forward looking and is now actively courting the Indigenous vote in order to compensate for demographic changes in the Indo-Guyanese population. If the opposition fails to incorporate the Indigenous population, they will remain out of power for years to come.
Regarding the question of power sharing, I would recommend editorial board of Stabroek News to have a look at the constitution of Switzerland and its system of government. Ultimate power remains with the Swiss people as any law passed by parliament can by challenge by a public vote. The system forces the parties in power to laws that meet a broad consensus. If not, they run risk of having the law overturned by a referendum. Food for thought!
Agree that power must remain with the
people especially in local government.
Yes Swiss system is designed for local governing….cantons. Not sure if it’s also
“compulsory“ voting…but am an advocate
of CV with fines used for funding elections.
OZ an example of CV democracy in principle/practice
…
The Swiss system of governance and direct democracy is not limited to local/cantonal government applies also to the national level. On September 27, a whole list of different issues will be decided on the national level. If you want to learn more go to: https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/20200927/limitation-initiative.html
Voting is not compulsory in Switzerland and voter participation is between 30-60%.
By contrast, voting seems to be compulsory in Guyana as the valid votes cast in the 2020 General Elections suggest a voter participation of 97%….. 😉
So if one desires a shared governance, then there is no need for voting. But who would the government be accountable to. Not saying that any Guyanese government, past or present, including the British, were accountable to anyone.
Kman, I am not advocating shared governance, but governance that addresses the needs of all ethnic and socioeconomic groups in Guyana. I believe that this can be achieved by introducing the instrument of a public referendum for all laws passed by parliament. This is practiced in Switzerland for 150 years and has led to more inclusive governance in a country that has four official languages and is composed of 26 cantons. Here is how it works. Each law passed by parliament can be challenged by the citizens. If you oppose a law, you will have to collect 50’000 signatures from eligible voters (i.e. about 1% of the voting population) to qualify for a nation-wide vote on the new law. This mechanism ensures that parliament (independent who is in power) passes laws that represent the interest of the majority of the people. If they don’t, they risk that the law will be repealed by a public vote. In summary, I believe that Guyana should serious consider adopting elements of Swiss direct democracy, while preserving its present parliamentary system.
Interesting suggestion but reads “bureaucracy”
to me. Dictatorship the alternative !
Parliamentary democracy works for most
as tried and tested system of governing.
Google compulsory voting for countries
that operate this system…
For a 90% turn out without CV is farcical !
Corruption ?
Simple Simon says
1. No written constitution
2. Issues debated by MP who are allowed
“Free vote”..written into law. No ifs or buts.
3. Courts interpret with poo poo enforcing.
Emphasis in first sitting of parliament discussing//debating/deciding on new
anti corruption laws. Enforcement
and enforceable at all levels of society/culture.
Political reformation ASAP
Kamtan
“Anti corruption”
Why do you think direct democracy reads as bureaucracy? Switzerland has a very lean bureaucracy compared to many other liberal democracies. I am also not postulating that Guyana should discard its parliamentary democracy, which has a long tradition in the country. I am asking for amendments that strengthen people’s right and force the ruling parties to pass laws on the basis of consensus of what will stand a challenge in public vote. The system in Switzerland has brought stability to the country ever since its implementation in 1848 after a brief civil war.
Some good points ….
May have a Switzerland bias….
Not unlike UK they are “money launderers”
of the planet. Their banking system is as corrupt
as it gets!
a safe haven for “guns/drugs” monies.
Most despots/dictators hide their ill accumulated wealth in Swiss banks.
LFSB one of their many customers post WW2
Why even Hitler and his nazis used their
banks to laundry monies.
Maybe their political advocates should address
these issues.
And not “if u can’t beat them join them”
comment please.!
Can go on forever on subject hence my suggestion that Guyana turns a new page in its
history making.
Kamtan
Kamtan, your are entertaining stories from the past! WW2 ended 75 years ao! Money laundering and tax evasion has in recent years been massively curbed in Switzerland in accordance with OECD regulations and US FACTA rules. By contrast, the UK still uses the Channel Islands, where trusts are used to conceal ownerships, to hide money and evade taxes. The same is true for the US, the world’s largest tax haven, with its letter box companies in Delaware and Nevada.
Regarding Swiss (Semi-)Direct Democracy, check out this link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Switzerland
Here some key points from that Wikipedia report:
The Swiss Confederation is a semi-direct democracy, i.e. a representative democracy with strong instruments of direct democracy. That’s exactly what Guyana should consider.
Switzerland is a rare example of a country with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, cantons, and federal state). Citizens have more power than in a representative democracy. On any political level citizens can propose changes to the constitution (popular initiative), or ask for an optional referendum to be held on any law voted by the federal, cantonal parliament and/or municipal legislative body.
Swiss citizens vote regularly on any kind of issue on every political level, such as financial approvals of a school house or the building of a new street, or the change of the policy regarding sexual work, or on constitutional changes, or on the foreign policy of Switzerland, four times a year.
This “legitimacy-rich” approach to national citizen lawmaking has been very successful. ….Switzerland has had tandem successes both socially and economically which are matched by only a few other nations.
“Too often, observers deem Switzerland an oddity among political systems. It is more appropriate to regard it as a pioneer.”
The Swiss political system, including its direct democratic devices in a multi-level governance context, becomes increasingly interesting for scholars of European Union integration.
The major problem with adopting elements of semi-direct democracy in Guyana or other countries is that the parties in power do not want to ceed power to the people, which they doom unpredictable….
Agree to disagree !
So Guyana remains a “failed state” !
Status quo politricks !
…
You are doomed for eternity, if you give up hope for change and the better.
And keep in mind my late Guyanese grandfather’s wise words: What man has done, man can do!
Reforming Guyana’s system of government is not rocket science, but it requires the willingness of all stakeholders. And the constructive input of Guyanese abroad can be helpful.
“requires the willingness of all stakeholders”
Pipe dream my friend…
Power corrupts
“Ultimate power corrupts ultimately”
Dream on …it’s free but only if dreams are realistic …
QED
…
Beati pauperes spiritu… 😉