The Government, PPP/Civic, PNC/Reform and the three minority parliamentary parties, GAP/WPA. TUF and ROAR, should have indicated by yesterday their participation in the consultation scheduled by the social partners representatives for tomorrow afternoon at the Supreme Court Library.

The meeting has been requested by the SPG to end the impasse over the issuing of a much-discussed and amended `Joint Communiqué on Crime’. If it does not take place, then there would be little hope, if any, in maintaining an interest in the wider dialogue initiatives by the social partners.

As spokesman for the SPG, Dr Peter DeGroot, remarked to me when I telephoned him for an update:

"If we cannot reach a consensus on the crime situation, a matter that affects the lives of each and everyone of us, then it seems unlikely that we will make any progress on issues like constitutional reform and shared governance".

Well said, indeed. But unless there is a significant shift by the main opposition PNC/Reform, away from its latest response to the draft joint communiqué, a consensus can hardly be achieved at tomorrow's scheduled meeting.

None of the three social partners’ representatives involved in the consultative initiatives can properly be expected to comment on the individual positions of the participating parties in relation to specific areas of agreement, or disagreement, while efforts continue to reach a consensus.

There has, however, been sufficient circulation among the parties and involved individuals of the exchanged drafts within recent weeks to give an idea of the serious divisions that still exist in arriving at a common position for the release of the anti-crime communiqué.

A somersault?
Given the encouraging positions initially reflected by the PPP/C and PNC/Reform on the first draft, the latest response by the main opposition party suggests a virtual somersault on key sections of the proposed joint anti-crime communiqué.

In contrast to what was originally offered in the social partners draft and

considerably embraced by the government and PPP/Civic, objections by the PNC/Reform now include important, sensitive sections in both the `preamble’ and specific `measures’ for action.

For example, to the section reading: "We reaffirm our common commitment to continue efforts in finding ways of accomplishing the related goals of peace, justice, inclusionary democracy and, ultimately, a resolution of our political and other difficulties", the PNC/Reform has called for a change in text to read instead:

"We reaffirm our common commitment to continue to find a way forward in order to achieve by whatever means necessary (emphasis mine) the related goals of peace, justice, good governance and ultimately, a resolution of our political and other difficulties by the implementation of a form of inclusive governance that will remove alienation and provide an opportunity for all Guyanese to be fully involved in the task of nation building"

No legitimate government, in any democratic state, that has been freely elected by the voters, would be expected to endorse a document, in this case the proposed anti-crime communiqué, to recognise as a right for ANY political party or group to resort to "whatever means necessary", to achieve set objectives.

That would be to extend legitimacy to illegal protests, lawlessness, and worse. The hope, therefore, is that the PNC/Reform would have had further reflections on its latest changes to the text of the draft and show at tomorrow's meeting that level of political maturity and realism that cannot be beyond its capacity.

On the proposed "measures" for action, the party's proposal for the word "immediate" to be included in the section dealing with the suggested replacement of the controversial `Target Squad’ of the Police Force, could reasonably be viewed as being consistent with earlier demands. Whether or not the Force feels this should be done now is another matter.

'Security' change
When, however, the PNC/Reform seeks to change the composition of the three-member National Security Advisory Committee, assembled by the social partners, with an unmistakable view to having at least one of the members replaced, then it is most unlikely that either the government or the PPP/Civic would accept such a significant change.

In its present form the Committee comprises the former Chiefs of Staff of the Guyana Defence Force, Norman McLean and Joseph Singh (both retired) and retired Police Commissioner Laurie Lewis.

By its proposed deletion of the relevant paragraph on composition of the National Security Advisory Committee, the PNC/Reform is by no means being clever. Its objective to exclude Mr. Lewis comes out clearly by its suggested "new paragraph".

Since all three, McLean, Singh and Lewis, served for years under successive PNC governments, the question that would be asked is why now propose a deletion to effectively exclude a very experienced Guyanese in matters of national security and crime because of any consultancy service he may have with the current government.

And why would a major political player like the PNC/Reform want to be so disagreeable in the choice of the National Security Advisory Committee as mounted by the representatives of the Private Sector Commission, Trades Union Congress and Bar Association?

They are "advisors" to the social partners in its ongoing efforts to promote broad-based dialogue on the way forward. Why the fear over any of them?

Is this a deliberate attempt, along with the PNC/Reform's proposal for the right to resort to "whatever means necessary", designed to provoke the Government and, consequently, further frustrate the desired consensus on the proposed joint anti-crime communiqué?

In the PNC/Reform's proposal for inclusion under "measures" for action, the following words "and the immediate increase in salary and emoluments of members of the disciplined forces", can also be viewed as seeking to score a political point, knowing that it would be most surprising for the government to so commit itself at this time when pay hikes for public sector workers remain an issue of dispute.

As I mentioned earlier, the difference to the earlier draft resulting from the face-to-face discussion between representatives of the PPP/Civic and PNC/Reform to that of the opposition party's latest response, as submitted to the social partners, is so significantly different in a number of sections that it brings into question the party's commitment to reach a consensus on the joint anti-crime communiqué.

The social partners have done well in the composition of both the National Security Advisory Committee and choice of representatives to advise them on "constitutional reform" - Ralph Ramkarran, Haslyn Parris and Rupert Roopnaraine.