The PPP has been practising inclusive governance
Stabroek News
May 15, 2002
Dear Editor,
I refer to your editorial "Acute Crisis" in Sunday Stabroek May 12, 2002 which was particularly harsh on the PPP, citing a number of charges.
First, you accused the government of governing half the nation. The principle of democracy is that elected government (based on majority support) has won the right to govern the entire nation and for what it considers in the best interest of all, the nation. This principle of majority rule may not be perfect, but it is the best we have, at this time! This principle works in business (the majority of shareholders get the chance to select their Chairman and Board); in non-governmental organisations and in democratic countries. America is currently the best example of a President/ Government elected by half the population, with a very small difference in the percentage of the popular votes between Bush and Gore. What your analysis ignores and I want to add, is if the "other half" of the population is democratic then it has to support the elected government and use the institutions that exist, to address grievances. If these institutions do not exist, use the legislative process to create them and to ensure they work. I add that democracy demands the non-governmental "half" to be civic minded, be respectful of the laws and the government's elected right to govern.
Your editorial calls on the PPP to break out of its "mental prison" and promote inclusiveness. The PPP as a government since 1992 has done this and in an unprecedented way. The PPP public relations may not be as good as another party, but your charge of a 'mental prison' and "inclusiveness" reflects the blinkered vision of the authors of your editorial.
Since, I have been a Member of Parliament and intimately involved in politics the PPP has been the party that has been inclusive, very inclusive:-
* It was the PPP that institutionalized the "Carter Formula" for the selection of the Chairman of the Elections Commission. It also included that in the generation of the list there be consultation with other opposition parties.
* A greater number of Bills were taken to the Special Select Committee process, another mechanism for inclusiveness.
* The call for constitutional reform and the proposals adopted lately were driven by the PPP, TUF and other opposition parties. These proposals have allowed for a greater say by the people and offer more checks and balances on the elected government.
* Accepting the process of "Dialogue"
* Including the opposition PNC/R nominees and nominees from NGOs and the churches on state boards. The PNC/R has more than 5000% more nominees than they gave opposition parties prior to 1992.
* Accepting to have a Parliamentary Management Committee. The PPP thus has an enviable record of inclusiveness.
I remember doing an interview in the Gleaner Newspaper (1983) when I said that the PPP while Marxist would allow for free and fair elections.
Your call that the heavier onus is on government is tantamount to you accepting that bullies must get their way. When bandits hold you up, if we accept your principle, you should hand over your possessions and make a pact with them to give them extortion payment, so that you could have peace in particular because the onus is on you to maintain peace. Your analysis of a heavier onus to do xyz is tantamount to giving in to terrorism.
I feel the onus is on all of us to build a democratic country. The heavier onus is on the media to be balanced and not fan the flames of political implosion.
Yours faithfully,
Hon. Manzoor Nadir M.P. Leader of TUF
Editor's note:
It is perfectly true that in a normal democracy a government elected by the majority has won the right to govern the entire nation. That the PPP/C won that right following the past three elections is beyond dispute. The reference to governing "half" a nation in the editorial relates not to the principle of democracy as understood in most Western societies, but to the matter of the alienation of the African community. The fact that the governing party does not operate with the intention of marginalising anyone, is not the point here; the point is that the sense of alienation, whether or not it finds any basis in fact, is very real.
Most democracies are associated with fairly homogeneous societies. We have argued that Guyana is not a homogeneous society, and that the major political parties have an ethnic support base. Whenever one party is in office, therefore, the constituency of the other one will inevitably feel excluded. Whereas under ordinary circumstances, the opposition bides its time playing by the rules until another election comes along, the Africans in this country foresee a situation whereby the party which they view as representing them will never be able to win at the polls for demographic reasons.
Owing to the fact that there is no uniform ethnic base for democracy in its traditional formulation to function here, we have argued that adjustments need to be made to the political framework to allow for greater participation of the representatives of the African constituency in the decision-making process. While some concessions have been made by the PPP/C, these are not of a sufficiently fundamental nature to address the problem.
What the editorial did not say, and it should have done, is that the constitutional reform process was intended to confront this problem and that it did not do so. The main reason for this was because the PNC/R did not place before the Constitutional Reform Commission any vision for structural change.
As such, therefore, the PNC/R has neither articulated a vision for the future, and neither has it accepted the role of a more traditional opposition. It cannot have it both ways. The reference in the editorial to the "heavier onus" being on Government to defuse the current situation, did not refer to the underlying ethnic problem of Guyanese politics; as indicated above, the heavier onus in that department rests with the PNC/R to put forward a view for radical change in the first instance. Where defusing the current situation is concerned, in contrast, the editorial said it was for the Government to deal in particular with the extra-judicial killings being perpetrated by a segment of the police force.