A dual mandate? Stabroek News February 3, 2000 Mr. Sherwood Lowe, a PNC member of parliament, has made a substantial contribution to the debate on power sharing and on a number of other issues. In his most recent letter captioned "The PPP is not the only party with a mandate" (l.2.2000), Mr Lowe develops a theme he had raised previously to the effect that there is a multiplicity of "national" mandates in Guyana, that the main players have the support of large and fixed political masses, not easily eroded, and that in view of this "our task becomes that of looking for a system of government to manage and accommodate these circumstances". Mr Lowe's premises are that there is a strong case for power sharing. Many will agree with this. However, he appears to be going beyond that and arguing that even though power sharing has not been agreed by the two main parties and that the constitutional model in place is that of winner-take-all a government should not now seek to impose its own mandate and govern without the consent of the other main party. There is, in other words, a need for prior consultation on all major issues. Mr Lowe in his letter suggests that the PPP is playing Russian roulette, and is insensitive to the delicate and complex nature of the political process. "Other political entities (whether political parties or trade unions) carry a burden of responsibility to their members and supporters no less pressing than that of the PPP. Even more, these Guyanese expect their representatives to actively discharge that mandate. The PPP has a total misunderstanding of this reality, or a callous disregard of it". He continues: "In a divided society, the notion that a single party could have a national mandate is a delusion. It is a corruption of democracy that has led to a distorted approach to political rule in Guyana. Take, for instance, the strategy of "surrogate motherhood" in Guyana politics, whereby the ruling party deliberately ignores the institutional representatives of those on the "other side" and pretends to represent their interests and concerns". Mr Lowe argues that the PPP has sought to circumvent the collective bargaining process by granting pay increases through a budget announcement. It has also, he claimed, sought to ignore PNC controlled local government bodies in its dealings with regions and communities. "The thinking of the PPP that its "national mandate" gives it the right to impose its will on the entire political process leads to an even more perilous approach to political administration in Guyana. The attempt to erode the power base of its rivals. The long standing face-off between government and the Public Service is the most obvious case in point. The PPP sees the Public Service as a black dominated centre of political resistance and power that is aligned formally and informally to the PNC. The PPP has therefore moved to undermine this power base. It has, for instance, passed legislation to convert several units of the Public Service into "autonomous" commissions, always leaving excessive powers of appointment and dismissal in the hands of government ministers. The Revenue Authority is the latest of such moves. This matter has correctly been seen not merely as an economic policy measure but as a political stratagem of the ruling party to wrestle control of a vital power chip". The flaw in Mr Lowe's argument may be that he interprets many acts of governance as if they are conceived as a direct attack on the other side. The government has argued, for example, that the Revenue Authority has been created to enable more efficient revenue collection, not to weaken the GPSU. Only four persons are in fact losing their jobs. The GPSU can also apply to represent the workers in the new body. It has argued that at least one local government body has failed to spend funds allocated to it on a consistent basis. To take Mr Lowe's case to its logical conclusion, if everything is interpreted in the prism of ethnicity then we do not have a country and no elected government can govern, effectively or at all. The logic of Mr Lowe's argument is gridlock or stalemate. He is effectively urging that consensus be sought in advance on all major issues. Though that may seem desirable in principle how practical is it? Can a country be run that way? We agree that there should be prior consultation with the opposition on new legislation, we also agree that there should be more consultation with the unions and efforts to set up a process of regular consultation with the TUC are commendable. But where does this duty end? We agree with Mr Lowe that a strong case can be made for some form of power sharing, at least on the experimental basis suggested by Dr Roopnaraine. But his own party has not accepted this. The model in force is still the modified Westminster model. In those circumstances, doesn't a government require some leeway to carry out its job? The ERP programme that this government is in fact seeking to implement, with some changes, was put into place by a former PNC government in l989. Much of what it is doing, including the setting up of a revenue authority, flows from that programme. It can be criticised for implementing the programme ineffectively, but can it be criticised for seeking to implement it at all?