Stabroek News
June 10, 2001

Evolving a new formula for government which reflects 'inclusivenes' in our context is not going to happen overnight. Having said that, however, there is evidence that the Government has made a somewhat shaky start in reflecting the new spirit of the times. The impression which is being conveyed - whether or not that is what it intends - is that it fears any abrogation of its traditional powers. It gives the appearance of believing that consultation means allowing the other side to have its say within a given forum, and then ignoring the views it then advances.

Whatever 'inclusiveness' eventually comes to denote in this country, its starting point clearly has to be the willingness to compromise. It might be noted that this particular art is not a strong point with either the Government or the Opposition, but since in this instance it is the Government which holds the reins of power, the onus is on it to accede to negotiated agreements in areas of identified concern.

The administration's seeming lack of enthusiasm for the new political trends has been nowhere more apparent than in the case of the Alcoa proposal for the bauxite industry. Having set up a committee of eminently qualified persons to review the options and make recommendations under the Jagdeo-Hoyte agreement, and after having given the members a month's deadline to submit their findings, the Government then proceeded to pre-empt everything by announcing that it favoured the proposal submitted by Alcoa.

Whether or not Alcoa's proposal is indeed the best is hardly the point; the point is that even if it were, the governing party should have held its peace at least until after the bauxite committee had submitted its recommendations, and possibly for longer than that. As it is, its lack of finesse has created a situation which may prove hard to redeem.

First of all, the committee has been undermined, since it suggests that either the Government has no confidence in it, or it really has no intention of taking the work of its members seriously. The consequence of this unfortunately is that the governing party's commitment to the entire dialogue process becomes a subject for scrutiny.

Most dangerous of all, the Government creates an overt political situation out of that which had not been such previously. After it had declared its hand, it took no time at all for the bauxite unions to come out denouncing the Alcoa proposal, and following them the PNC/R. Whatever the committee recommends now, it will be doing so in a charged political context, and might even end up being accused of political bias itself. That would not be possible if neither the committee nor the public knew what the position of the politicians was on the matter.

As it is, even if the bauxite committee does favour the Alcoa proposal, the Government will have a fight on its hands, because the political battle lines have already been drawn. If the committee favours some other arrangement, then the administration will be faced with the unappetising prospect of either pushing through the Alcoa deal in the teeth of publicly declared opposition, or appearing to climb down on the issue. How much more sensible, skilful and diplomatic it would have been if the Government had just kept its mouth shut on bauxite for the time being. Who knows, it might have got what it wanted in any case with a minimum of collateral political damage.

It is always conceivable, of course, that the governing party's volubility on the subject of Alcoa reflected less their unease with the new political context, and more their thoughtlessness about the consequences of their actions. If so, then that is an indictment in its own right. Whatever the case, they have unwittingly fuelled the suspicion which already poisons the atmosphere between the two major parties.