Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
It is commonplace for the People’s Progressive Party’s (PPP) government, even by some of its usual supporters, to be referred to as a ‘runaway train’ – unaccountable, untransparent and non-inclusive. This has become so overbearing that recently the Leader of the Opposition Mr. Aubrey Norton suggested that there needs to be consensus between the government and the opposition on any large projects the former intends to implement. Given the domineering agenda of the PPP within days, its spokesperson, Ms. Gail Teixeira, the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance, took to the media to denounce Mr. Norton’s views as unworkable, claiming that there is nowhere in the democratic world that the government and the opposition need to arrive at consensus before the government can proceed. She was wrong of course!
Not only are there specific cases in the democratic world where consensus of this sort is required but whole systems of governance are deemed consensual. A mild example of the first is Belgium’s ‘Alarm Bell Procedure’ or ‘soft veto’, which gives time for mediation for the parties to reach a mutually acceptable solution. As to the second, Professor Sammy Smootha explained that there are in the West two pure forms of democracy with many variations for managing conflicts in ethnically or nationally divided societies. The classical and predominant form is liberal democracy based upon majority rule and the other form is consociational democracy in countries such as Belgium and Switzerland, based upon the politics of negotiation, compromise and consensus (Nations and Nationalism 8 (4), 2002, ASEN 2002).
Indeed, right here in Guyana during the 2020 elections, in that section of its widely circulated pamphlet entitled ‘Who will benefit from ANUG being in parliament?’, A New and United Guyana answered, ‘The Guyanese people, for notwithstanding the abundance of natural and human resources, our political history of ethnic confrontations, has cost hundreds of lives, a professional migration rate that is arguably the highest in the world, the destruction of billions in property and has left Guyana the poorest country in the Caribbean Community and among the poorest three in the Northern hemisphere. By voting for ANUG, the electorate will ensure the existence of a party over which they have not only political but legal leverage over its core commitments. The consensual governance we shall establish will banish forever tendencies towards ethnic domination and dictatorship and will create an arrangement consisting of all the major political parties. Ethnic communities will feel secure in the knowledge that there chosen leaders have a seat at the table and their interests are being protected. This would lead to a broad-based acceptance of political, economic and social policies and economic and social progress will be accelerated.’
From the construction of the American constitution to this very day, constitution making for nation building has involved compromises to accommodate all significant ethnic and national groups. Among other conditions, that is why Donald Trump could have won the American presidency in 2018 with a minority of votes or to gain the presidency in Suriname one must win two thirds support in the national assembly. Indeed, since both the PNC and PPP are now minority ethnic parties, the ‘Social Cohesion’ or ‘One Guyana’ they spout will not materialise even if one of them happen to win a handful of votes from the other ethnic groups to pass the 50% line for ethnic estrangement is too deep and getting worse every day.
Apart from the structural difficulties arising from political competition in a winner-takes-all situation, the current constitutional arrangement in Guyana simply cannot provide the country with the level of accountability or the parties with the degree of legitimacy that is required to build a nation. These two qualities are not simply numerical but also psychological ones that require more inclusive forms of governance. In view of the interest the United States is presently showing about Guyana it might be useful to take note of the democratic constitutional arrangements in Kosovo that the West had a significant hand in constructing after the breakup of the Yugoslav republic with considerable resultant ethnic conflicts.
Kosovo has a population of 1.95 million people: 92.9% are Albanians 1.6% Bosnians, 1.5% Serbs, 1.1% Turks etc., but never mind the overwhelming majority of Albanians the smaller minority groups have significant veto powers. The present constitution of the Republic of Kosovo came into force in 2008 and so too did an interesting law on ‘The Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Communities and their Members (PPRCM).’
The National Assembly of Kosovo has 120 seats of which 10 are guaranteed for representatives of the Serbian community and 10 for representatives of other non-majority communities. Two thirds of the members of the parliament together with 2/3 of the members of the parliament representing the minority communities need to support constitutional amendments. Further, Article 81 of the constitution of Kosovo recognizes the right of minority ethnic communities to oppose the adoption of laws that they believe might adversely affect their vital interests and there are eight types of such laws, the adoption, amendment or abrogation of which require the majority of MPs together with the majority of minority MPs. Moreover, these laws cannot be subject to a referendum the latter being a majoritarian instruments. Indeed, ethnically inclined majoritarian mindsets, such as exist in Guyana, might rightly conclude that the Albanian majority is hostage to minority interests, but it is universally understood that a country’s constitutional arrangements should be tailored to suit its unique history and circumstances.
The PPRCM established a ‘Community Consultative Council’ chaired by the president. In proportionate numbers the Council consists of representatives of all ethnic communities in Kosovo. It has the mandate to, among other things, assist in the organization and articulation of the views of communities and their members in relation to legislation, public policy and programs of special relevance to them and meet once a month but twice a year conducts a major review of communities policy and concerns.
More importantly, in the Guyana context and for my continued recommendation of an ethnic audit, the PPRCM states that ‘in consultation with the Community Consultative Council and other relevant national and international stakeholders, the Government of Kosovo shall prepare, adopt and publish once a year a comprehensive strategy for the promotion and protection of rights of all communities and their members. The Government shall present annually a comprehensive report to the Assembly of Kosovo on the implementation of its strategy. The strategy shall establish targets and special measures for combating exclusion and marginalization of communities and their members in the economic, social and cultural life in Kosovo and for the full implementation of this law.’
It is nonsense to claim that consensual political arrangements of the sort suggested by Aubrey Norton does not exist in the democratic world, but he will have to define more closely what he has in mind and perhaps he could call on ANUG to inquire if it still is of the same mind. But there are many useful examples that could help to put a stop to the PPP, or indeed PNC, runaway trains.