The future at stake
Stabroek News
March 18, 2001
No one would really dispute that it is a racially polarized
electorate which will wend its way to the polling stations tomorrow.
No one would really dispute either that, for the most part, the
members of the two major ethnic groups will cast their votes according
to a template laid down more than forty years ago by a previous
generation. In that regard at least, nothing much has changed; the
divided society of the 1960s is still with us, and the problems which
it generated still have not been solved.
Whichever party therefore discovers on Tuesday that it has won the
presidency, will be taking over the helm of a ship where a significant
proportion of the crew, if not exactly mutinous, is nevertheless
convinced that it is serving under the wrong captain and wrong
officers. After the passage of interminable years, and the experience
of almost three generations, we know that it is not possible for
either of the two large parties to steer the vessel on its own, or
command the co-operation of all the mariners on board for the purposes
of reaching a common destination.
So here we are yet again, trudging to the polls to decide not where
we are going, but which of the candidates representing the two most
numerous ethnic groups in the country should go through the motions of
trying to get us there. In our context, true democracy is not just
about free and fair elections - although that is certainly an
important element - it is also about involving the entire crew in a
meaningful way, in the operations of the ship.
What is required at this stage are institutional mechanisms to make
possible a role for the opposition at the decision-making level in
government. What is not required is the co-option of individuals
associated with the opposing party or parties into the power
structure; that would simply be to make token gestures. The opposition
party, qua party, has to be dealt with. No one is suggesting
that in a context where both sides of the political divide have
demonised the other it will be an easy proposition, but it is
nevertheless a proposition which has to be entertained.
Until the results of the election are known, it is difficult to
envisage the modalities which might make possible a more rational
approach to the rules under which power is exercised in Guyana. The
starting point, however, is a will on the part of the two largest
parties - their majority or minority status notwithstanding - to amend
things. After that, we will be in an experimental mode, tinkering with
the framework to find something that is workable in our context. These
changes need not be visualised as permanent; they will merely
facilitate arrangements ad interim to take us out of our current
impasse. Some may be retained in the long term, while others may have
to be adjusted to accommodate later changes in the society. In other
words, for the time being we should regard our constitution as a work
in progress.
Our politicians notwithstanding, the nature of our society will
eventually change, and the present party structure will over time be
forced to adapt in consequence. Once computers become widespread in
the community, and Guyana really becomes linked to the information
superhighway, then the relationship of government to the people will
inevitably be of a different order. And the standards which will be
applied will be those of the international environment. A population
which is as well informed as the administration, and which has so many
avenues for expressing its opinions cannot be easily ignored and
cannot be palmed off with platitudes. More and more a government is
going to have to listen to the electorate, and be directly responsive
to its views and demands.
In the meantime, the two major parties hold our fate in their hands.
We have surely come to the end of the line for a system of 'winner
takes all;' it is now for both sides to show courage, and for their
leaders to lead in the true sense of that term. What is at stake is
our future.