With constitutional reform in the air, we must be prepared to be presented with all manner of diversions, particularly by those who wish to avoid changing the winner-takes-all political system that for decades has been the major obstacle to Guyana’s growth and development. Mr. Ravi Dev understands this well, for he tells us that the central need of politics in Guyana is the combination of ‘kinship (the basis of ethnicity) and consent (the basis of democratic government) into politically viable entities through constitutionally protected arrangements, involving territorial and non-territorial politics.’
He recommends federalism for it ‘combines the seeming contradictory impulses present in all societies, but accentuated in plural societies such as Guyana, the need to be united (the principle of solidarity – and shared rule) and the need for groups to live authentically (the principle of autonomy – self rule).’ Where he is wrong is in his assessment that while ‘Our liberal democratic governance structure assumes a more homogenous society than we are, executive shared governance can lead to immobilism in decision making’ and thus should be rejected (KN: 03/09/2024).
Before considering Ravi’s notion of ‘federalism’, I believe that a few overarching conceptual concerns need to be clarified. Firstly, as I understand it, governance immobilisation is an essential feature of democratic governance in all societies. It defines the limits to which the executive must adhere or be punished for exceeding, either by various forms of veto, at elections or by public protest. In a homogeneous society, ultimately this is done by way of a united public opinion and where this does not exist, as in politically antagonistic multiethnic/bicommunal societies, by way of shared executive authority.
Secondly, constitutional immobilism is not necessarily total, for example, in the case of Northern Ireland, vetoes by way of the Good Friday Agreement, do not necessarily shut down the government but could prevent the implementation of a given policy. I am certain that Mr. Dev would have preferred the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) to be at the executive table able to veto the APNU+AFC Coalition government unilaterally dismissing thousands of sugar workers at Christmas time. I certainly did. As in the case of the ‘pocket veto’, immobilism can also be temporary: to give pause for more in depth consideration of a contentious issue.
Thirdly, as Sir Authur Lewis argued, democracy requires that ethnic groups or their representatives be an effective part of decision-making that will affect their lives. In a society such as ours, if the focus is indeed upon developing a nation out of our ethnic peoples, winning or losing elections should be secondary and consensual governance should be given pride of place. Seventy years of political life have demonstrated the inhuman lengths to which the PPP is willing to go to give the impression that ethnic political preference is not pervasive: this is the most convincing evidence of its prevalence.
In relation to political devolution, my ideological position is ‘subsidiarity’: the organising principle of decentralisation, which holds that the central authority should have a subsidiary function, dealing with only those tasks that cannot be dealt with effectively at the local level, and that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralised authority capable of addressing them effectively (Subsidiarity, autonomy and local democracy. SN: 21/08/2013).
I took issue with Mr. Dev’s conceptualisation of federalism as it is to be applied to Guyana in Consensual democracy and devolution, Guyana. SN, 31/01/2018; Federalism and racism, SN: 08/05/2013; Federalism: the ethnic balkanization of Guyana, SN: 22/05/2013; Local government reform, SN: 10/07/2013; Local government: a bird’s eye view, SN: 17/07/2013, and Local government should be liberating, SN: 24/07/2013, to name a few, until he suggested that his objective could be accomplished by a system of devolution similar to that established in Kenya.
His proposal is somewhat unclear and thus unfortunately he now faces a similar difficulty with Mr. Eric Phillips (‘Federalism and Ravi Dev.’ KN, 05/09/2024) as he had with Mr. Vincent Alexander, who accused him of surreptitiously attempting to place Indians at an advantage in the distribution of the regions and thus the natural wealth of Guyana (`I maintain that Dev’s Federalism proposal is highly flawed.’ SN: 25/01/2018).
Dev’s discourse a few days ago emphasises the possible vicissitudes of the ideology of federalism, but he has a more specific formulation. ‘I propose that Guyana be reconstituted as a Federal Republic, even as a coalition government be formed at such a republic’s centre. In a society where the major ethnic groups each constitute majorities in different areas of the country, political devolution offers the largest number of incentives towards addressing ethnic insecurities.
There are several variants of devolution, ranging from strong Local Government to Federalism. The latter arrangement offers the most benefits to Guyana: in a federal structure, “winner takes all politics” would be eliminated, since the central government would be concerned with national issues such as defence and foreign policy’ (Federalism to end ethnic conflict. SN: 3/12/2017).
As pointed out above, in ethnically divided societies, liberal democracy demands that ethnic groups be at the executive table went important decisions are made, and defence, foreign and border policy etc, are important to all ethnicities. If, therefore, by coalition government at the republic’s centre he has in mind one based on the major ethnicities being able to immobilise action that runs counter to their national and local interest and not alliance with some miniscule party, I agree.
But I do not believe that it is possible to eliminate ‘winner takes all politics’ by establishing more opportunities for winners to take all! The kind of ethnic differentiation that is to be found at the national level also exists in every region and therefore coalition only at the centre will not suffice. The PPP and PNC will still be all powerful at the regional level and in Dev’s kind of system, it would be possible for the African political leadership in Demerara to discriminate against Indians and vice versa, say by the Indian leadership in Berbice.
To escape such an environment, ethnic groups are most likely to conclude that it would be better to find security among those of their ethnicity, thus making the racial balkanization of Guyana a distinct possibility. To be acceptable to me, in an ethnically divided democratic society such as ours, what is also needed at the national and regional levels are immobilism mechanisms to prevent regional authorities from discriminating and thus avoiding the possibilities raised by Alexander and now Phillips.
Thus, federalism does not preclude the need for executive shared government at the central level. Indeed, since our intent should be to reduce central government intervention in regional affairs to the minimum, avoid exclusion and foster intra-ethnic relations in the regions, shared governance arrangements are also necessary at the local level. Then and only then would we see the kind of united ethnic regional politics that will make the natural state-centeredness of federalism/devolution harmless to our project of building a united Guyana.
