In our edition last Wednesday we reported Dr Peter de Groot, Chairman of the Social Partners group which had attempted to break the logjam in the Jagdeo/Hoyte dialogue last year as saying that suspicion and distrust of its motives had been the reason for its failure. He told an audience of diplomats last month that there was a “perception in one political camp that the Social Partners Group was biased towards the other camp and [this] therefore resulted in the initiative being viewed with increasing suspicion as the process developed.” He made reference to Dr Luncheon’s comments about there being a “significant problem with groups like the Social Partners, who had not developed through any national electoral process,” and he told the story of Minister Teixeira’s accusation against him that he was biased towards the opposition in an effort to derail the dialogue process. On that occasion, said Dr de Groot, Dr Henry Jeffrey had strongly disagreed with her.

That Dr de Groot’s comments are on target is clear from the editorial in today’s Mirror newspaper, which lambasts the Social Partners for lacking the “legitimacy” of the politicians, “who have to face the electorate... in order to receive a legitimate mandate,” and to whom they must account for their stewardship. Why should any credence be paid to such a group, says the editorial, when they are “in questionable limbo without any status?” That Dr de Groot had hit a sensitive nerve is also evident from the fact that having said all that (and more) substantiating his observations, the leader (apparently unaware of the contradiction) asks, “Is the Chairman really privy to the thinking of the government?” Given what members of the Government and the Mirror itself have said, the answer is clearly, yes.

Paradoxically, in the case of the Social Partners Dr de Groot said, suspicion of the group’s motives propelled the Government to engage the Opposition in meaningful discussions directly again - presumably as a more acceptable alternative to institutionalizing what it saw as a potential third political force. However, despite the recent progress on questions of implementing Dialogue agreements, etc, Dr de Groot still sees the need for an independent monitoring group which would represent civil society in its broadest sense, as well as the diplomatic community. He said he thought that an independent grouping would have the “potential of being able to develop into a secretariat...”

The Social Partners attempted to play honest broker between the political parties at a time of acute crisis, when the services of some group or other were desperately needed. At the time, the citizenry was grateful for their efforts, even although the Government was mistrustful of them. The problem is, however, that ideally we should not be seeking to institutionalize arrangements in all seasons which should be reserved for periods of crisis alone. The fulcrum of our democracy should really be Parliament. Unfortunately, however, for a long time Parliament was in a morbid state, not functioning as it should. In a period of enormous difficulty, therefore, the Dialogue was superimposed on our constitutional structures, and, as Mr Khemraj Ramjattan observed in our edition of October 18, Parliament was then ‘de-gutted’ of its most important function. Of course, in our situation of impasse, the dialogue process conveniently short-circuits the red tape and the blockages, because it operates at the highest level of the parties. In addition, the President does not sit in the National Assembly, so any political exchanges there of necessity exclude him.

We now have constitutional arrangements which are cumbersome. Whether each and every one of them will survive the test of time unamended is doubtful; however, we have to try and implement them - particularly in spirit to test what works and what does not. On a long-term basis, the country cannot be governed by the Dialogue process; as said above, that, and any monitoring mechanism for the implementation of its joint decisions must be seen as a fall-back in situations where our regular institutions have failed, and we find ourselves dancing on the edge of the abyss again.

By the look of things, we may have to depend on the Dialogue and perhaps some monitoring mechanism along the lines conceived by Dr de Groot for a good while yet; however, if the Government really wants to take back its fate into its own hands, it has to recommit itself to Parliament, and be prepared to lay aside its suspicions about the motives of those who criticize its actions within that institution’s portals. It has to be prepared to give criticism a rational hearing something which to date it has shown no capability of doing. Where appropriate, it has to be prepared to amend policy, and forego the rhetoric and try some genuine debate for a change. We now have the various Parliamentary committees, so it is important that the Government move on the matter of securing adequate research capacity to support them, so they can function in a meaningful way. If Parliament continues to be a rubber stamp which effectively excludes the opposition from making an input, then maintaining equilibrium in our political universe may well come to depend on some institutionalized extra-constitutional mechanism.

It must be said that the Opposition as well must take Parliament more seriously. It too must forego the suspicion and the rhetoric and the hit-and-run, ad hominem attacks. What one asks of an opposition is an alternative vision and alternative policies based on serious research and well thought-out positions. If the Opposition functioned at a more serious level, the Government would be forced to do so as well.

The Dialogue covers only limited aspects of what is important for this society; we need to hear our legislators engaged in measured debate on all the larger questions which will affect this nation’s future.

At this point, the Government is at a crossroads. What it decides to do in relation to the functioning of Parliament, and to what degree it attempts to work with the combined opposition within that forum to make the National Assembly truly viable, will at least partly determine the future direction of our democracy. It is in its own interest, and not just that of the country, to be more malleable on the Parliamentary front. It cannot continue to allow suspicion of everyone outside the charmed circle of the party to govern its behaviour in every context.