On the way to general elections in 2001
By Festus L. Brotherson, Jr.
SUGGESTIONS to postpone general elections in Guyana, which are due by January 17, 2001, in favour of a government of national unity comprising the main and smaller opposition political parties in coalition with the ruling PPP/Civic, miss the point. Such a government would not work! And the debate itself, though interesting, is incapable of bearing usable fruit. The best approach to elections on the horizon is to prepare for the deadline purposefully and expeditiously. Postponement should be considered only for compelling reasons, e.g., production of an acceptable voter's list. Experience and precedent are teachers that help us develop prudence, which, in turn, informs better theorising and decision-making. But, beyond fondness for a short time long past in Guyana - early 1950s - there is neither precedent nor experience here nor in the English-speaking Caribbean's post World War II history that commends a proposal for coalition government or Caribbean Community (CARICOM) government in the region. Experience has also taught that while painstaking efforts have been made in Guyana since 1985 to assure free and fair democratic elections, the results (including for the most heavily monitored December 1997 polling) have usually been charges of fraud in incendiary vein, court challenges, political violence and other lawlessness. Is it prudent to expect focused, problem-solving unity government where one of the major parties is consumed by the `instinct for power after power that ceaseth only in death' a la Thomas Hobbes? Another ignored fact is that the experiment of 1953, which had a united PPP led by the late Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham, failed to produce sustainable ethnically diverse political unity. The causes for that remain the same today and include the matter of race. There is too the consideration that that brief coalition government of the PNC and United Force (UF) collapsed in Guyana by 1968. It also broke down in nearby Trinidad & Tobago whose ethnic profile is akin to Guyana's and whose economy, unlike ours, is trend-setting and robust. If this ideal cannot work in the optimum conditions of Trinidad, does prudence commend it to Guyana where the political culture emphasises insularity, invective and iconoclasm? Besides, the economic pie in our Land of Many Waters is puny and that intensifies ferociously bitter competition for a slice of it by tactics that include racial perspectives real or imagined. The political culture showcases an enigmatic unworthiness where the main political parties, the PPP and PNC, cannot even agree to speak to each other in search of solutions for Guyana's governance problems. Is it pragmatic to pursue power-sharing for administering the country in this climate of non-cooperation and distrust? Logically, things would worsen rather than get better in games over portfolios, turf control and other distractions with an eye to new elections rather than the national interest. Let us reflect on the status quo of the two dominant political parties. The PNC is locked in battle for new leadership involving `Young Turks' pitted against the old guard. The body is not a cohesive force with a democratic decision-making apparatus. If Mr. Hoyte leads the PNC in the next elections, defeat is assured based on two previous consecutive beatings and, especially, unstatesmanlike behaviour carried out in the party's name after the December 1997 elections. The PNC does have progressive executives who want change but cannot deliver the necessary removal of Mr. Hoyte who, despite red herrings, apparently has no intention of retiring. Besides, even if his removal were achieved soon and a new leader chosen to lead the party into the January 2001 elections, he or she would still lose. This is because there is not enough time for the Guyanese people to get to know the new person. The most one could expect is a new leader spending years of rebuilding the party's image, credentials and a democratic apparatus. In the ruling PPP/Civic, there appear to be problems as well regarding leadership issues. Thus, it would certainly be imprudent to pursue a power-sharing government with other political parties at this time; more so if this requires postponing general elections. It would be a tremendous distraction to leadership and consolidation of power issues in both the PNC and ruling PPP, and the programme of development for the immediate future, as recently outlined by President Bharrat Jagdeo would suffer paralysis. The point is this: while talented individuals are in the main parties and the smaller ones as well, government is still formed on the basis of victorious political parties and not ad hoc selection of individuals around the country for their excellence; except in cases of defections and technical appointments to the Cabinet. It is the same all over the region. Perhaps the PPP/Civic should consider attracting such persons to `cross the floor'. But given the current political context of the nation and climate in the main political parties, recommendations about power-sharing to right perceived wrongs and to achieve development are specious. Guyana's politics has changed from the innocence of early 1950s ideological idealism, where class issues rather than race dominated orientations, to one of instinctive proclivity for interpreting realities from the perspective of race. More positively, that all the political parties have signed on to the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) is a progressive step. Elections 2001: Inspired work, not loss of will By Festus L. Brotherson, Jr. (Part II of a series) MR. BRYN Pollard, a constitutional legal expert, and Mr. Haslyn Parris, a PNC executive member, made contributions last week to the ongoing debate over the upcoming general elections in Guyana. Mr. Parris is also a member of the Oversight Committee on constitutional reform established by the National Assembly to convert the reports and recommendations of other bodies into a new draft constitution. Those bodies that presented the reports were the Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) and the Special Select Committee that were likewise set up by Parliament. The general elections are mandated by the 1998 Caribbean Community-brokered (CARICOM) Herdmanston Accord and St. Lucia Statement to take place by January 17, 2001. Under its terms, a new Guyana Constitution has to be in place before the elections. The on-going debate involves calls for postponing the 2001 poll, due to time constraints, in favour of an interim government of all the political parties until whenever the new Constitution is approved. Mr. Pollard believes that time is too short for a thorough job to be done on the Constitution since complex issues are involved and require deeper consideration. Among examples, he cites the recommendation for a new electoral system that would assure expanded competition, participation, and representation in the political system based on geography, gender and proportionality. He mentions, too, the matter of creating an Upper House of the National Assembly, as is the case in the rest of the English-speaking Caribbean. Mr. Parris, on the other hand, is more optimistic that completing all the work on time is `eminently feasible.' He does agree, however, that substantial change in the electoral system in time for January 2001 might require more expert advice on the feasibility of this aspect of reform in time for the elections. From all appearances, even though it is useful to point up time pressures, as Mr. Pollard has done, the best outlook should remain one of optimism that can positively inform efforts for the difficult tasks involved in preparing the new constitution. And once the idea of an interim power-sharing government is put to rest for its predictable divisive impact if pursued, there is more reason to support the current plans. Mr. Pollard's insights and Mr. Paris' optimism should serve to inspire all involved to get on with business free from narrower political concerns that could bring about gridlock. This is no time for loss of will power. In recent decades, Guyana's infirm political system has suffered major shortcomings from inability to execute constitutionally directed elections. The results have been injurious or, at best, mixed. This might appear to strengthen the call for making haste slowly with constitutional reforms and general elections. It does not. Rather, it shows how urgent is the need for more focused stick-to-itiveness and efficient, determined endeavour to break the cursed cycle. The 1978 elections were postponed for a referendum on a new constitution. The 1980 plebiscite that was conducted under that constitution further institutionalised authoritarianism. Then, the 1990 elections were postponed repeatedly until 1992 for making sure that polling was free, fair and heavily monitored by independent observers. The result was the birth of fledgling democracy which has since been battered and bruised by foul play. Democracies - especially weaker ones - derive greater strength through moral rigour that facilitates adherence to principles. One of the more basic principles is keeping to agreed-upon schedules. On the other hand, the proclivity for facile postponements injects eye-over-the-shoulder doubts about purpose and commitments. These taint the process from the get-go. More collective concinnity is necessary for success. If time constraints begin to affect work in major areas such as preparation of a voter's list, then the matter of revising timetables would be a `consectaneous' outcome. Thus, more germane for discussion now are the requests of the Chief Election Officer for resources to be put in place towards 2001. At this time, however, with all the major players voicing optimism on the schedules, it is premature to agitate for delays via a putting-the-cart-before-the horse logic. The ruling PPP/Civic, the PNC, smaller parties, and other key players state that the timetable for the constitution is doable. We should allow work to proceed free from preemptive strikes. Thus far, issues of fairness to the Guyanese people have been avoided in the calls for postponement of elections, elongating the constitutional deliberations, and having a power-sharing arrangement. The Guyanese people deserve to have their deep fears, along with the pall of uncertainty and tensions that attend, removed from over their future and that of the country. Evidence of the uncertainty is the revelation that many businesses are quietly relocating from the capital city of Georgetown to other areas. Georgetown is usually the flashpoint for eruptions of violent protests. Question: Is postponement fair to the ruling PPP/Civic which gave up two years of its five year term of office in service of those very security concerns and other noble causes?.
|