More inclusive governance
Editorial
Stabroek News
August 13, 2002
It would be a mistake to think that the debate on more inclusive forms of governance is a new one. It goes back at least to the sixties when the society was in turmoil as a result of the then ethnic and ideological struggles. Various proposals were put forward for discussion, a well known one by the New World Group in l963 but also others by members of civil society who sought to promote talks between the two main parties.
The only significant change made at that time was the change in the electoral system from the first past the post constituency system to the system of proportional representation. Though one can make a case for that change it was in fact implemented by the British government for ideological reasons, namely to get rid of the Jagan government which based on previous election results could not obtain an overall majority of the vote and would therefore lose control of parliament and probably of the government.
That change having been made and that result having been achieved in the l964 elections no further substantial changes were made or sought by the new government, and the l966 Independence constitution contained all the features of the Westminster parliamentary system, similar to what had been enacted in Jamaica, Trinidad and elsewhere in the former colonial empire. That system remained in force until a presidential system was engrafted on it in l980 as part of a new constitution, following a rigged referendum in l978. Many have felt that the change from the full parliamentary system where the head of government, the prime minister, sat in parliament and was fully accountable there, and there was a separate non-executive head of state, was an entirely retrograde step.
Since that time there have been various constitutional changes including some useful ones to do with improvements in the parliamentary system which have not yet been implemented because of a stalemate in the discussions on certain formulae between the two main parties. Those reforms would go some way towards giving the opposition party a greater say in governance.
There is a more general feeling now that further change is needed though there is no consensus on what form this should take. Some have suggested more decentralisation of power to the municipalities and other forms of local government. ROAR has gone further than this and proposed a federal system with four states, Berbice, Demerara, Essequibo and Rupununi with each state having its own governor but with the federal government, as in the United States, having the conduct of foreign affairs, defence and other vital portfolios. Some have proposed executive power sharing and have pointed to examples in South Africa (under the interim constitution), Northern Ireland and elsewhere. There has been talk of giving the opposition veto rights in certain limited areas of legislation and of requiring special majorities to pass certain types of laws.
Changing systems of governance democratically (not autocratically, as in l980) is not a simple and straightforward process. It requires a change in mindset and in established ways of thinking. It may be utopian to think that a simple solution lies at hand. What is urgent and essential is that there should be established a structured dialogue, perhaps involving all the parties in parliament, in which there could be an open discussion of the issues involved and possible solutions. To be useful, those discussions would require transparency and good faith. Perhaps, as has been suggested some reforms can be accepted and experimented with and later changed if they don't work though this might not be as straightforward as it would seem. But there must be good sense and a spirit of compromise. There must be a genuine search for solutions. Otherwise, the discussions can easily degenerate into squabbling and acrimony.
To facilitate this dialogue it would be useful to have experienced mediators who could both help in defining the issues to be examined, in preparing agendas, in taking notes, in sending out minutes and notices of meetings and in ensuring the kind of continuity that is vital in a complex process of this kind. Those familiar with the negotiations that led to the Oslo Accords, the Good Friday agreement, the release of Nelson Mandela and elections will be aware of the value of some form of mediation.
Guyana is surely at a watershed in its political development. The way out of it is to seek reform in structured dialogue, as has recently been suggested by civil society. It would also be useful for the participants in the dialogue to do some background reading which could include the Federalist Papers.