This week the man/woman-in-the-street comments on the dialogue between President Bharrat Jagdeo and PNC REFORM (PNC/R) Leader Desmond Hoyte and whether they are satisfied with the talks so far. The PNC/R recently took a decision to suspend the dialogue because it was unhappy with the lack of progress in a number of areas.

Robert Bourne - University of Guyana student: `The dialogue as far as I am concerned only came about because of the problems the country had been going through in the aftermath of the general elections and it was politically expedient to the PPP/Civic to achieve some amount of peace and stability. A relative state of political stability has been achieved and as far as the PPP/Civic is now concerned, it is the democratically elected government, so it does not have to listen to what Mr Hoyte or anyone else has to say. So in reality the dialogue does not matter. For the government it is business as usual.'

Leslie McGibbon - pensioner: `The people on the ground are not getting enough information in general about the dialogue. There should be more reports coming out of the discussions. As a matter of fact, they appear to be closed door and secretive as though information is classified. Even if the discussions are behind closed doors, both President Jagdeo and Mr Hoyte could avail themselves to the media to give the public an idea of what is happening. Both men are knowledgeable. You hear talk about establishment of committees... but what committees? The one thing the dialogue has achieved is the end to hostilities.'

Marcellene Awad - school leaver: `I am not satisfied with the dialogue process because there cannot only be talking. They have to take action as well. I am not sure that there has been anything tangible coming out of the dialogue. I know the protests have stopped and that talking is better. But young people like myself, just out of school and hunting for jobs, would want to see the talks translate into action that could benefit us socially and economically. Because there is a need to keep Guyanese together and because both Mr Hoyte and Mr Jagdeo represent large portions of the country's population, I don't think they should stop the dialogue. The dialogue needs to be continued and in good faith.'

Joel Bowen - private sector employee: `If Mr Jagdeo and Mr Hoyte reach agreement in the interest of the nation and government needs to take action then I think that Mr Jagdeo should ensure that those agreements are honoured. But what I think is hindering the progress of the dialogue and making it a farce is the fact that many or most members of Cabinet do not want to see the talks succeed. I don't think that they want Mr Hoyte in partnership with President Jagdeo to get credit for any positive development which will most likely take place from the dialogue. As such they ignore the decisions taken by the two men. So in a way the dialogue is a waste.
Right now I agree with the stance Mr Hoyte is taking. If the PPP/Civic government does not see it fit to honour the agreements reached by the two gentlemen, then Mr Hoyte is doing the right thing in not continuing the dialogue because then the talks between the two become meaningless. Mr Hoyte represents a large section of the Guyanese population, a section which feels that government does not have an interest in them. If the talks fail then that section will feel left out in this so-called democracy we are living in. After the government would have honoured the agreement then the two men could continue their dialogue. The dialogue should even be widened to include others who have the development of the country at heart.'

Rhim Bacchus - supervisor: `To be honest I really don't know what the dialogue is all about. The only change is that hostilities between the major ethnic groups have ceased. It would make a lot of sense for the two men to speak and bring about some semblance of peace to lay the groundwork for the country's economy to take off. I do not know what the two men are doing or what they are not doing because of a lack of publicity. What I do know right now is that Mr Hoyte is not in favour of continuing the dialogue because I've heard that Mr Jagdeo is yet to act on some agreements they've reached. It appears as though Mr Jagdeo does not have the authority to sway Cabinet to do what he thinks is in the best interest of the country. I remember the late Mr Burnham who when he spoke, he did so with authority. At the moment things are really not that good so that I have to concentrate on developing my own kitchen garden at home to supplement my income.'

Ershad Mohamed - lecturer: `Is there still a dialogue between the two? I know that it served a purpose during the post-elections period but after that I cannot say that I've heard much about what the dialogue was all about or what decisions were taken. I feel the dialogue should be broadcast and then people would know what is going on. Now the dialogue is at a stalemate. Yet there is a future for dialogue in which the two could sit and make compromises in the country's interest. I don't think that either of the two parties, that is, President Jagdeo's and Mr Hoyte's, are putting the effort into making the dialogue work. The President is trying to please his party executives and Mr Hoyte, his. Whatever happens they both need to remember that they are representing peoples' interests in general and not just parties' interests.'