Bringing the opposition into Cabinet in executive power-sharing requires careful thought – Pt 11

lincoln lewis, guyana chronicle

AS we continue the examination of the absence of careful thought by the proponents of national unity, premised on the opposition being in the cabinet, which is referred to as executive power-sharing, it becomes over important to put this issue in context through historical and present perspectives. Executive power-sharing, of which the GTUC was the only national institution that made such a proposal, has seen the term gaining political currency and adopted in various strands later. In January, 1979, when the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) proposed and presented a document under the signature of Bro. Joseph Pollydore for executive power-sharing to the Constituent Assembly, it was done conscious of the fact that the major political forces embraced socialism, which they galvanised the citizens and nation around, and the GTUC supported in principle. Compounding this, the society was still hurting from the racial upheavals of the 1950s and 60s, there was the Cold War, and conflicts relating to our borders. For Guyana’s survival during these turbulent external and internal periods, the labour movement felt a political solution had to be found to safeguard the nation’s social and economic well-being. This nation is reminded during the upheavals Guyana was a colony, the United Nations (UN) was still in its embryonic stage, and the country was not qualified to be a member of the UN family. Independence was achieved in the environment of the Cold War, and the UN seeking to assert itself as the principal mediator and standard bearer for human development and good governance. At independence, Guyana became a member of the UN and also joined the Non-Aligned Movement, with politicians offering to this nation their brand of socialism which, even though different in some strains, had lots of similarities. Today, as the call is made for bringing the opposition into the Cabinet, such is made in the absence of any universally acceptable principle. In fact, this notion is only being guided by gut feeling and apparently held hostage to an era inasmuch as the society has moved forward through laws, and the people in their communities on average share cordial relations in their day-to-day lives, while expressing a right to belong to a political party of choice. Further, the politics of today has drastically deviated from the politics of the Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan eras. In spite of the shortcomings of both men, there was civility in their discourse, even when they disagreed with each other; there was greater respect for laws; and the leaders were responsive to public outcries. These men saw themselves in service to the people. The behaviour of political leadership has changed today, not necessarily for the better, in the interest of the people, or respect for the laws that are there to safeguard the people. Additionally, the world has also changed. Today the tenets of the UN the and International Labour Organisation (ILO) are accepted as principal forces in guiding human development, resolving disputes and forging good governance globally. From these tenets which formed the basis of human relations, laws are established undergirded by the principle that all would be held to the same standards and play by the same rules. For instance, trade agreements with the European Union are hinged on adherence to rights. The USA, considered the world’s most powerful nation, has seen under the Obama administration employing human rights and the rule of law as key pillars of its foreign policy agenda and pursuit of good governance. To this end, the USA’s Representative to the UN has been elevated to a Cabinet position, with rights advocacy resumé. Our constitution in its present form enshrines “Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual (Title I)”, Rights commissions and Service commissions. Scant or selective regard is given to upholding these, even though they are universal and mandatory. The Human Rights Commission was never appointed and this nation awaits news when it will be. What this nation is clearly seeing is a lack of political will, interest and commitment to respect the constitution and laws by those we have elected to political office. Instead, political survival, relevance or claimed concern for the people are manifested in playing the race card, or fighting political battles of bygone era, unconcerned about existing laws, or that the world, people and thinking have moved on. This is not to say that the race and political conflicts of the past which pitted groups against each other, saw separation of families, blood baths, deaths and mayhem, ought to be forgotten or wiped from our history. No. Having had the personal experience on 23rd August, 1964, when my uncle and three cousins, who were farmers, all of burly physique, and over six feet tall, were murdered in the most gruesome manner in the Abary Creek, because of their identity, the loss and pain would always be there. That having been said, a choice has to be made: should this nation and its people be held captive by the past, or put systems in place to ensure there is no repetition; or should there be mechanisms in place to deliver justice? Post 1964 has seen the building of bridges in and among racial communities, reducing the divide, which has worked towards building trust among individuals. The people’s development in race relations must be nurtured and ensured through application, deepening and strengthening of the constitution by attendant laws and other supportive infrastructure. Also, thinking about executive power-sharing as the answer to resolving conflicts between Africans and Indians in itself is discriminatory, since the other races are left out of the equation, even though Article 149 of the Constitution forbids such practice. Applying the principles of good governance would see this nation not held captive to the era of racial upheavals, when we have clearly entered a phase where rights and freedoms are constitutionally enshrined to protect citizens from being exploited and discriminated against by their peers and leaders, and ensure prudent stewardship of their business. Seeing that others seem pre-occupied with this notion of bringing the opposition into the cabinet, the question this society must now address is: “Why are leaders giving lip service or are half-hearted in respecting instruments in the society that are built off of UN and ILO principles, seemingly more comfortable offering up arguments for excesses and violation of political comrades and self, on the notion that the Constitution limits them or offers protection?” To be continued…