Dear Editor,

In the 'guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com" web site Dr. David Hinds seems to hammer away at "Power Sharing Government" as one alternative to racial conflict without referring to any specific models or stating any logical, and reasonable plan. I offer a few comments on his feature of July 18, 2001 under the caption-Stop Fooling Around: Time For Real Power Sharing.

Dr. Hinds acknowledgment of the political fooling around by the PPP and the PNC contradicts his own call for power sharing. Both parties have exhibited the inability and indiscipline to work with each other, let alone for the good of the entire nation. Although Dr. Hinds clearly pointed out that these parties are engaged in their own power struggle, yet he is calling for power sharing. This makes no sense.

The article can be termed as therapeutic or free writing since no concrete examples of power sharing were cited nor was any sound guidance tabled. Here is what I mean: The article claimed that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing (referring to the PPP-PNC dialogue) and, yet in the same breath called for both hands (i. e. , the PPP & PNC) to merge. Is this coherent and judicious, especially when the hands (i.e., the PPP & PNC) have different functions and are not compatible? Sorry, Dr. Hinds, power sharing and democracy do not work that way!

For power sharing to be effective a mutual agenda must be set for all parties to adhere to and no one should take it upon themselves to act arbitrarily.

It is no doubt that by now everyone should have come to grip with the fact that the parties are engaged in a political "tug-a-war" where the citizens are paying the ultimate price which will eventually leave the country in the same or a worse state of discord.

Here is my take on the issue: The PPP and the PNC lack the moral decency to work together for the benefit of the public good, as they are caught up with their own self interest. PPP used this debate strategy to silence the opposition's issues. PNC falls for the rap ( i.e., the dialogue) hoping that it will get another chance at governing Guyana. Both parties therefore, ignored the crucial social problems the country faced and advanced parties' agenda.

In the midst of all of this, Dr. Hinds finds the opportune time to add to the level of confusion by offering inconsistent suggestions. It is ironic that he calls simultaneously for direct and indirect power sharing to solve the country's racial problem. He calls on citizens to get involved in decision making to problems affecting them- direct power sharing, the people make the decision. While on a parallel note he is saying that political parties must or should work together for the betterment of the country, this is indirect power sharing-people elect parties to make representations on their behalf.

Dr Hinds' proposals are not well thought out.