Hinds’Sight – There should be a Transition Phase before actual Power Sharing

by dr david hinds, guyana chronicle

THANKS to an unprecedented political gesture by the governing APNU+AFC government, Power Sharing is in the air. The previous ruling party had pledged to end winner-takes-all politics up till the eve of its assumption of power in 1992. But once it got into office, the PPP, still led by legendary Dr. Cheddi Jagan, turned its back on that promise. It refused to share power, even with its partners in the struggle to remove the PNC from office. In a cruel twist of history, the PPP opted for one-party domination which eventually pushed Guyana to the edge of socio-political disintegration. The longer the PPP remained in office, the more stubborn it became on the issue of sharing power. When in 2002, the PNC, which had vacillated on the issue, decided to embrace power-sharing, many wrongly thought the PPP would relent. Then in 2011, when it dramatically lost its customary electoral majority, optimism was renewed. But once again the PPP, then led by the moderate Donald Ramotar, refused to heed the call for a national government. That is why the APNU+AFC’s gesture to the PPP is an important step forward. It has taken a lot of courage to do that. Satisfying a campaign promise is the easy part. The more difficult part of it is going against the mass perception among their followers that the present PPP is too corrupt and unapologetic about its excesses while in government to become part of a government that has a mandate to clean up corruption and bad governance. The paradox is that these very supporters twice voted for a platform whose centrepiece was the establishment of a Government of National Unity if it wins. It takes bold leadership to navigate such a paradox. The PPP’s initial negative reaction to the government’s gesture is not surprising, even though it would have made life easier had it done otherwise. My sense is that the PPP, notwithstanding explanations such as Nagamootoo’s leadership of the government’s team and its old tune of trust, is genuinely caught by surprise. It did not expect the government to make good on its promise, for that is not in keeping with the political norm in Guyana. So, its response is grounded in an old reality: it responds as if it is in power. There are some in the leadership who may also feel sure of the party’s ability to recapture power at the next election and thus see no need to share power. In the final analysis, the government and the PPP have to work through developments which the logic of our recent political history has taken the country. By making its bold move for power sharing, the coalition has also put itself in a quandary. How will the governing parties share executive government with the PPP while some of its leaders are either under suspicion of or are actually facing the courts on charges of corruption and other malpractice when in government? Will it pick and choose who in the PPP it will work with? I don’t think that will work, since we would end up with the PPP’s cynical approach of inclusive governance on its terms—the Ramsammy or Nadir formulae. And how will PPP ministers be accommodated in a government in which some partners have already hinted that they are not adequately represented in the current configuration? The government’s announcement has also put the PPP in a quandary. If the party decides to accept the government’s offer, how does it explain that since it has lost power, trust between it and the PNC has been achieved? How does the PPP explain to its supporters that it is joining a government which it claims is ethnically cleansing them? What level of participation would satisfy the PPP that they are part of a genuine power-sharing government? Will they, for example, demand or be offered the prime ministership and other key ministries? It is for all of the above that I think that the move towards a power- sharing government must be preceded by a transitional phase, during which power is shared at the lower levels of government, such as the Regional, Municipal and Neighbourhood governments. This allows the parties to work together in a practical way in arenas where the stakes are not as high. Second, and more importantly,it puts space between the PPP and central power; it allows the party to both self-detox and be detoxed by the course of justice. This is critical. The PPP would be divided on whether to enter a power-sharing government. The transitional phase allows the party to work out its differences. This transitional phase should also include joint work on the constitutional framework that would accommodate the eventual power-sharing government. Here is where the constitution reform framework that is already in motion is crucial. But the PPP would have to be meaningfully involved. It also allows the coalition to fine-tune its own power-sharing praxis which I don’t think is properly worked out at the moment. For example, one is not too sure that the AFC is committed to power sharing as a guiding principle. We know that Nagamootoo and Nigel Hughes are, but Ramjattan is on record as opposing it and the views of the other leaders on the matter are unknown. Finally, the transitional phase, which I think should be 2-3 years, should be used to engage the ethnic masses in discussions and popular education on the importance of power sharing beyond the usual rhetoric. In this regard, the Ministry of Social Cohesion may well turn out to be a master stroke. (Dr. David Hinds, a political activist and commentator, is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Caribbean and African Diaspora Studies at Arizona State University. More of his writings and commentaries can be found on his YouTube Channel Hinds’ Sight: Dr. David Hinds’ Guyana-Caribbean Politics and on his website www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com. Send comments to dhinds6106@aol.com)