If they are going to be held properly accountable at some point in the constitutional reform process, the political leadership of the various parties need to provide the population with white concept papers that outline how they view and propose to solve the major political/constitutional problems in Guyana. This is particularly important in Guyana’s ethnically charged oligarchic political environment. Among other things, this will help citizens to better assess the nature and scope of the problems and the possible alternatives.
Constitutional reform is a complex matter that, particularly in ethnically divided countries where there are many interrelated issues that may have to be considered, requires expert advice. Some of these issues are: the notions of collective responsibility, separation of powers, prorogation; term limits for parliament and the presidency; the budgetary processes; the nature, power and status of parliamentarians; direct constituency representation; voting and cross-ethnic voting possibilities; encouraging intra-ethnic party formation; super majorities and referenda; vetoes to protect ethnic interests; subsidiarity or strong devolution to regions and local authorities; communalism; recognising ethnic groups both geographically and culturally; political party financing; appointments to the judiciary; the nature of the Constitutional Court; government’s capacity to increase its own emoluments; post-elections coalitions; closed parliamentary top-up lists; political party reorganization, legally binding intra party arrangements and political manifesto promises, party primaries; presidential immunities; the elections commission and elections financing, and civil society participation.
Like most citizens, I am not an expert, but for me most of Guyana’s political, economic and social travails are located in the way it is governed at the central level and I do believe that this position has sufficient currency and will need to be expertly linked to the kind of issues identified in the above paragraph and presented in any white paper.
Democratic constitutions are rooted in the philosophy that holds that every citizen has a stake in the country and should be able to participate in an equitable fashion in deciding its priorities and future. They contain the rules and precedents by which a state is governed: they places the governing power in the hands of the citizens in a manner that generates trust by protecting the freedoms of the individual and groups.
I hold that for Guyana to progress, for the national motto of ‘one people, one nation one destiny’ to ever become a reality, its current political system that leads to extreme ethnic insecurities and competition rather than cooperation and the development of trust needs to be fundamentally reformed and that a consensual democratic political system best suits the country’s needs.
Responding to critics, one of the top experts put the matter thus. ‘Over a period of about forty years, my thinking has evolved from undiluted admiration for British-style majoritarianism to an overall preference for the contrasting consensus (and consociational) models of democracy. I agree that consensus democracy has some drawbacks, but these are outweighed by its many and strong advantages. ……. I argued that deeply divided societies could not afford the luxury of majoritarian government and that consociationalism was therefore the best, indeed the only, solution for them, in spite of clear disadvantages in terms of democratic quality and effective decision-making, although I also argued that these disadvantages should not be exaggerated. I am therefore not persuaded that I should modify my overall preference for consensus over majoritarian democracy. Consensus democracy may not be perfect, but in most respects it works better than majoritarian democracy: the pros outweigh the cons’ (https://
Many countries had or still have consensus/consociational systems: Belgium, Italy, Cyprus, the First Czechoslovak Republic, Kosovo, Israel, Lebanon, the Netherlands (1917–1967), Northern Ireland, Switzerland, etc,. The consensual principle of democracy requires that:
Political institutions encourage, and where necessary, mandate the inclusion of as many political perspectives as possible.
It is easier for small groups to be represented in the political system and make their voices heard.
The national head of government share power with other political actors and bodies.
In such a system political responsiveness is best accomplished when each interest can have its own party represented.
Among other things, consensual democracy emphasizes proportional electoral laws making large party systems possible, having two (or more) legislative chambers, forming multiparty cabinets, separating national and sub-national political units (federalism), constitutional provisions for supermajorities and strong judicial review.
The vision of a consensual democracy is largely opposite to winner-takes-all majoritarianism and in my opinion is best suited for countries like Guyana where a meaningful collective political opinion does not exist and so ‘a people’ does not exist to sustain a properly functioning majoritarian democratic representative government. Instead, the wishes of the two large ethnic groups are mediated by their ethnic oligarchies that for decades have been pulling them from pillar to post.
The consensual approach will remove the most pernicious aspects of the current system that gives the ethnic leadership of the political party that wins with the slightest majority the opportunity to govern unilaterally, including the opportunity to unilaterally determine how the public purse is distributed and how many persons are dismissed or employed in the state sector. Absurd as it may appear in the twenty-first century, Guyana’s democratic constitution even allows this leadership, without any mediation, to set its own remuneration.
