Any initiative designed to promote stable, democratic governance that could help in fostering racial harmony and enhance social and economic progress is to be preferred to divisive, confrontational politics.

It is certainly a preferred option to violence-prone, race-hate and reckless politics designed to make Guyana "ungovernable", as if in defiance of the expressed will of the electorate since October 1992.

I, therefore, think the responsible media in this country have a moral obligation to ensure that the Guyanese people are not misled into thinking that a solution to decades of socio-political woes are about to be seriously addressed as a result of a document submitted by the PNC/R on a new form of multi-party governance.

The simple truth is that an objective assessment of what the PNC/R is offering, through the Social Partners Group, for consideration at another consultation of political parties and civil society representatives, seems more of a recipe for crippling effective, democratic governance.

Abuse of powers under an Executive President belonged to the era of PNC governance. Now it seeks to revert back to a non-executive type presidency and to have in place a system of governance with enormous, if not exactly ridiculous limitations on the party that secured outright victory at the polls.

The devil is in the details, not the philosophical generalities reported in a document shared with a section of the local media and presented as a "blueprint" consistent with what the party's leader, Desmond Hoyte, had articulated at the PNC/R's last biennial congress.

For any coalition or multi-party government to be a reality, there must first be a demonstration of goodwill by the stakeholders. This is clearly absent at present in the Guyana political situation.

In the circumstances, therefore, there is need for caution before getting caught up in the polemics about the PNC/R's so-called "blueprint" for a new form of governance to replace what now exists.

It must be noted, for instance, that had there been that blend of seriousness and goodwill, the PNC/R would have considered it advisable to first forward a copy of its document to the governing PPP/Civic. Or, at least, do so simultaneously with its submission to the social partners representatives. This did not happen.

None so brave
There are reasons why such a thought would not have been entertained, by the 'power elements' in the PNC, assuming that at even one of the stated authors of the governance document was enlightened, or brave enough to make such a recommendation.

In the absence of required goodwill, let's reflect briefly on the negative factors that would make it very difficult, though not impossible, for any serious response from the governing PPP/C to the PNC/R's proposals for shared or multi-party governance:

*For starters, the PNC/R's threat to make Guyana "ungovernable" under the PPP/C is yet to be disavowed.

For a legitimate government to open dialogue with any party, in this case the PNC/R, on a coalition or multi-party government without a repudiation, or withdrawal of the destabilisation threat, would be to negotiate a fundamentally new form of governance under duress.

*Secondly, it taxes the imagination to accept that the PNC/R is moving in good faith with its step toward shared governance with the PPP/C, when it refuses to show the sort of flexibility that could garner bi-partisan support.

Two relevant examples should suffice, for now: First, and more important, its ongoing boycott of sittings of Parliament for over eight months now - while, of course, its MPs gladly accept their salary and allowances from the national treasury.

In other words, pay without work. The political cant about MPs working among their "constituents" could easily be ignored in the absence of proof of legitimate work done by the particular MPs and those "constituents" who can really be identified under the existing system of Proportional Representation. A Herculean task.

Putting an end to the PNC/R's boycott of Parliament as an act of goodwill to influence discussion on its proposed governance document seems essential. After all, if progress is to be achieved - a big IF - it is ultimately Parliament's endorsement that will really matter in changing the system of governance in this country. The ball, therefore, is in the PNC/R's court.

The Parliament
The PNC/R should not expect to be excused for demonstrating sheer contempt for Parliament, as it has been doing with its self-serving boycott these many months, and then look forward to that institution meeting to approve constitutional changes to facilitate a new form of governance.

No self-respecting party, no legitimate government should allow that to happen. There must be, as stated earlier, goodwill - on both sides. One hand can't clap. The PNC/R is yet to seriously reach out for compromise with the PPP/C.

Latest proof of its bad-faith negotiating mood comes from the strange conditionalities it has been laying out to be a signatory party to the draft joint anti-crime communiqué circulated by the social partners representatives.

The PNC/R is the party that moved Guyana from its status of an electoral democracy in 1964 to one of institutionalised vote-rigging up to 1985, that gave it an extended two-year rule before electoral democracy was restored in 1992 when it finally lost the power it had enjoyed for 28 years.

Now, without any remorse for its past, or humility in confronting the present, it has offered to the social partners changes to the draft anti-crime communiqué that include having the right to resort to "whatever means necessary", in the search for solutions to "find a way forward" out of the crime and violence and other problems plaguing Guyana.

This sought after legitimacy to resort to "whatever means necessary", cannot be delinked from the earlier threat to make the country "ungovernable". No one but the most politically obtuse could really be deceived by this suggested amendment to the communiqué.

When this stance by the PNC/R is considered against the backdrop of what was said on November 29 at a public meeting in Buxton which, sadly, has emerged as a sanctuary for armed bandits and terrorists, then it is to be wondered how really committed was the PNC/R, in the first place, to signing the draft from the social partners.

If flexibility and compromise cannot be achieved for the signing of the anti-crime communiqué, it would require a tremendous leap of faith to believe that the PNC/R's "blueprint" for a new form of governance is going to win the support it needs to become a reality.