Inclusive governance

guyana chronicle editorial

PRESIDENT Granger and Opposition Leader Jagdeo held their first meeting last Monday. It was the first meeting between the two leaders since being elected to their respective offices. As is customary, the initiative was taken by the President, who told the media that his invitation was consistent with the constitutional obligations of the Opposition Leader. It was also, we may add, a signal by the President that he takes very seriously the role of the Opposition in the governance of the country. Whether Mr. Jagdoeo would play a constructive role in this regard is left to be seen. In our Westminster tradition, the Opposition Leader and the Opposition in general have not been treated with the respect that is constitutionally and morally due to them. We have tended to emphasise the winner-take-all aspect of Westminster, at the expense of the collective spirit of the system. The previous PPP Government took the former to ridiculous levels. Even when the Opposition commanded a majority in the National Assembly, the executive ran the Government as if they, the Opposition, did not belong. A broad interpretation of the Westminster Model would reveal that the Opposition is, at least, in theory, part of the Government. They are part of the Legislative arm which is an integral part of the Government. In fact, the Westminster Model is premised on the primacy of the legislature. Although not part of the formal day-to-day function of the executive, the Constitution prescribes consultative functions. Our revised Constitution also confers upon the President the authority to include members of the Opposition in the executive arm if she or he so wishes. Minister of Governance, Raphael Trotman has announced that the President would soon announce an initiative that would facilitate a more inclusive engagement with the PPP. He hinted that the Coalition would interpret the inclusionary governance enshrined in the Constitution more broadly than previous Administrations. One thing he volunteered was the inclusion of the Opposition in Government delegations on important national matters. If that were to come to fruition, it would represent a giant step in the direction of substantive inclusionary democracy. The quest for real power-sharing has proved to be elusive. Parties tend to favour it when in Opposition, only to change course when in office. Perhaps the Granger doctrine, when announced, could at least serve as a half-way house as we try for real power-sharing, via the constitutional reform route. In the meantime, the Granger Administration should be encouraged along the path it has started. We hope to see frequent meetings between the two leaders. Of course, such a process needs two willing leaders. While Mr. Jagdeo’s comments following the meeting last Monday did not betray a readiness to embrace genuine inclusiveness, it is hoped that better sense would soon prevail.