‘An opposition without a credible vision’

When I was requested to critique the presenters of the Burnham Foundation’s Elvin McDavid Symposium on ‘How can an Electoral System for Guyana engineer a system of Governance that`s responsive to the Plurality of the Guyanese Society?’ it brought to mind that even when the People’s National Congress (PNC) was in its heyday, Elvin McDavid was among those who sought to place Guyana on the correct trajectory towards nationhood and thus, particularly at this period when the need for this kind of intervention has again com to the fore, the Burnham Foundation should be commended for remembering his contributions.

In January 1976, Forbes Burnham announced that the People’s National Congress (PNC) was being guided by the principles of Marxism/Leninism, and later that year, as the principal research officer of the party, I was summoned by General Secretary of the PNC and Minister of National Development Dr. Ptolemy Reid and told that the PNC and PPP had decided to jointly hold a series of meetings around the country and that I should look around for someone to represent the PNC. I found the late Dr. Perry Mars, but he later withdrew.  In the meantime, it became known that Cheddi Jagan himself would be representing the PPP and Dr. Reid insisted that I should represent the PNC.

As a child, my mother took us to public political meetings in Beterverwagting where Jagan, Burnham, Kwayana, etc. spoke and those images suddenly resurfaced. I did not think myself up to the task of publicly defending the PNC against Jagan and so I objected, but Reid insisted that he would not have asked me to do something I could not do and that in any case, I was a part of the clique – Elvin McDavid, Malcolm Parris, etc. of his ministry’s Department of Planning and Research – that was encouraging this kind of  thing. Cheddi and I held two meetings at Bishops High School and Beterverwagting Government School and if I remember correctly these led to Burnham and Jagan, for the first time since the 1950s split of the PPP, sharing a platform on Mayday of 1976. But apparently the coalition discourse later broke down over whether girls should have to go to the Guyana National Service.

What follows in bullet points are largely my take from the Burnham Foundation symposium.

The problems to be solved:

1. The separation of powers – the fundamental principle of democratic government that underpins government accountability – is absent in Guyana.
2. Political accountability is further diminished because two large ethnic groups and parties constitute and have control over 80% of the voting population.
3. Decades of quarrels and clashes based on claims and counterclaims of ethnic discrimination have cost much loss of life and property.
4. The resulting systems of governance have been autocratic and suboptimal.
5. The national/international rights of racial/ethnic groups to their own independent associations are being blatantly violated in efforts to compel their political support.
6. Indigenous people – about 12% of the population – are the poorest and are being surreptitiously deprived of their own independent organisations and representation.
7. The electoral system and voters list are severely flawed and have resulted in institutionalized elections manipulation.

Suggested solutions:

1. In relation to accountability and the separation of powers: sever the links by which ethnic political parties control the government that controls the parliament and have tremendous influence over the judiciary.
2. The rights of ethnic groups to their own associations must be entrenched and the executive authority of the state must be curtailed by direct power-sharing, veto, supermajorities, devolution, enhanced civil society enhancements, etc.
3. The legislature, judiciary, elections authority and other independent public commissions and committees must be made independent of the government in spirit and deed.
4. To aid this process official appointments and the behaviour of the entire government, opposition and all public bodies must pass the test of an independent, preferably non-resident, ethical ombudsman.
5. Collective bargaining in the public sector should be properly entrenched to, for example, put an end to the present autocratic government handouts that do not properly or collegiately address the long-term interest of public servants.
6. There should be an annual ethnic audit and review that considers disparities, opportunities, obstacles, etc. and recommend the changes necessary to improve the situation in a timely manner. Affirmative measures such as procurement ‘supplier diversity’ are only one element of this holistic approach to ethnic equity.
7. There should be about 50 instead of the present 25 directly elected members of parliament elected by their own names and responsible to their constituencies that have recall authority. If possible, the parliamentary top-up list should be open.
8. Those of indigenous ethnicity should makeup not less than 12% of the Members of Parliament. If 50% of them belonging to the governing and opposition parties together, should vote that any executive action runs counter to their interest, the matter should be delayed for three months and returned to the relevant bodies for reconsideration.
9. Local democracy should be based on the principle of subsidiarity – nothing should be done at a higher level that can be done well or better at a lower level – and strict rules should be made to prevent the involvement of central government into local affairs.
10. A specific percentage (15% for example) of the national budget shall be constitutionally set aside for regional and local authorities and distributed based upon an agreed upon equitable formula.
11. The national budgeting and national elections management processes should be based upon best international practices and national consensus.
12. A completely new voters list should be prepared before the next election, and a new one should be mandatory every time it is requested by a party or parties representing 33% of the seats in the National Assembly. Time is not a problem: in 2012 Ghana with a population of 25 million and 275 parliamentary constituencies, completed an entire electorate reregistration using biometric markers (ten fingerprints) in a six-week period. New voter identification cards were issued featuring head shots and the reregistration identified 8,000 double registrations of which 6,000 were judged intentional. (http://cpd.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/golden-rev-submitted.pdf).
13. Guyana’s PR system is extremely representative: the ‘joiner list’ that helps to make all votes of value should be properly institutionalized.
14. Obstacles to the participation of small parties should be reconsidered and where practicable removed.

Conclusion:

One could come to inclusive shared governance, which was the basis for our intervention in the 1970s, from a moral standpoint i.e. viewing it as a good but not a necessary objective if Guyana is to have any hope of becoming a democratic prosperous nation. I suspect that this belief still underpins the motive of many of those who profess inclusivity today. Thus, instead of its being constitutionally directed, the PPP will have us believe that democratic inclusive governance can be based upon ad hoc arbitrary interventions of the political class such as at present proliferate under its rulership. Also, sad to say that while the entire political opposition promised to be on its best behaviour if it wins government, it is yet to sell a credible vision of why it should be believed in a context where governments are largely unaccountable. What is to stop it from behaving worse than the PPP: particularly since the latter claims that its behaviour is patterned upon what the opposition did during its most recent foray in Government? Inclusivity of the type Guyana requires is not simply a moral position that can be dispensed with; it is a necessity. Note too that in most, if not all, of its dimensions, political success is best assured when the public takes hold of a worthy vision of tomorrow.