In Guyana, of course - the CARICOM state where, as the UWI political scientist, Selwyn Ryan noted last Sunday in writing about the "stability for a ruling party worth buying":

"The (governing) PPP/C boasted, with some justification, that the Guyana Constitution was now the 'most advanced in terms of inclusiveness and opposition involvement in governance in the Caribbean region, and certainly one of the most advanced in the world'..."

Readers of this column would know that Guyana also happens to be the country where the main opposition People's National Congress/Reform, defeated at three successive internationally supervised general elections since 1992, has elevated gridlock politics to a level that makes a costly farce of multi-party governance in spite of the ruling party's offers on consultation and inclusiveness.

This should not be confused with disagreement over the unrealistic call by the main opposition for Executive-power sharing.

President Bharrat Jagdeo was on an official mission to the People's Republic of China when his Finance Minister, Saisnarine Kowlessar, had to cease presenting the country's biggest ever budget (G$72 billion) on March 28, when the Speaker was forced to suspend the sitting for over half an hour.

This resulted from the behaviour of boisterous protestors of the PNC/R, among them two MPs, who threateningly invaded the parliament chamber with their anti-government placards as the police failed, surprisingly, to maintain law and order.

Except for one sitting, on February 19 this year, to facilitate debate on a "national crisis" motion submitted by the PNC/R, the National Assembly has been boycotted by the main opposition party for one year through the device of requesting, repeatedly, leave extensions.

The leave sought and granted by the Speaker, Ralph Ramkarran, a Senior Counsel and very experienced parliamentarian, have come to be recognised as part of the PNC/R's strategy of non-cooperation and perpetuate social/political tension.

The self-serving strategy has been worked out to ensure that the party's 25 MPs in the 65-member National Assembly continue to receive salaries (some G$30,000 each) plus allowances, but without having to make ANY contribution when this highest forum of the land meets to deal with the nation's business.

Political Immorality?
Basically, it amounts to receiving money for no work. It has provoked charges of political immorality by the governing People's Progressive Party/Civic, with considerations being given to the possibility of the Speaker starting to refuse leave to the MPs beyond the period provided for by the Standing Orders of the National Assembly that could result in the loss of their seats.

The governing party, which had amended the constitution, following the 1997 election, to prevent the PNC/R representatives losing their seats after an extended boycott, is now also accusing the PNC/R of wanting to hold the nation to ransom through gridlock politics.

It has been pointing to the PNC/R's refusal to engage in a consultative process for at least a year now to facilitate constitutional appointments for the functioning of Service Commissions dealing with the judiciary, public and teaching services.

Immediately affected are appointments to a judiciary burdened with a backlog of work and desperately in need of more judges, as well as the need to appoint a new Police Commissioner.

The problem of the PNC/R's boycott - parliament - with-pay politics and no consultation between the President, as executive head of state, and the constitutional Opposition Leader, is perhaps better understood outside of Guyana when it is realised that the country as a whole is one constituency under the electoral system of Proportional Representation.

Quite unlike its CARICOM partners, therefore, which have the electoral system of first-past-the-post, Members of Parliament in Guyana cannot be specifically held responsible for failing to service/represent the interests of constituents of a single constituency.

With the passing just before Christmas of its second leader, Hugh Desmond Hoyte, it was felt that there would have been some positive adjustments to the PNC/R's politics.

Non-cooperation habit
Such as a shift away from the party's habit of non-cooperation and confrontation; resumption of the high-level dialogue process that Hoyte had requested Jagdeo to "put on hold", and an end to the boycott of sittings of the National Assembly by the its MPs.

Except for some welcomed gestures by the party's new leader, Robert Corbin, in visiting crime-plagued villages along the East Coast Demerara to assure villagers of his party's concern over the criminal rampage, as well as his meeting with the Police Commissioner, the PNC/R's post-Hoyte politics remains largely the same.

Characterised, that is, by consistent policy of non-cooperation, ongoing boycott of parliament and, after the invasion of the parliament on March 28, seemingly returning to a confrontational mode.

It is a mode that has been its hallmark, with seasonal pauses, since losing in October 1992 the power it had monopolised and often wielded with an iron hand for some 28 successive long years

In the circumstances, it very much looks as if the PNC/R is seriously offering as a political virtue its policy of non-cooperation as much as its frequent verbal salvos against the Police for alleged executions and excessive use of force.

Rejecting accusations of "political immorality" by the PPP/C, the PNC/R claims that it is the governing party that must bear responsibility for placing the country in what it views as "a state of crisis".

Also, it has blasted the government for now showing "bad faith" by its announced decision as of last week, to go ahead with arrangements for nominations to the Police, Judicial, Teachers and other commissions - without waiting any longer for on consultation with the Opposition Leader.

Opposition Leader
For one thing, there is no Opposition Leader. Since his election to succeed Hoyte on February 1 this year, Corbin's PNC/R has not requested the Speaker of the National Assembly to arrange for a special sitting for the opposition parties to choose an Opposition Leader, as constitutionally required, to fill the vacancy created by the death of Hoyte.

In the absence of an Opposition Leader, therefore, and in the face of continuing gridlock politics for at least one year now, the government has evidently decided to resort to the "doctrine of necessity" with its advisers pointing to a legal framework for such a move.

For a start, the government has decided to make arrangements for the service commissions to be established and functioning, stressing that it could not wait indefinitely on the PNC/R to end its "obstructionist politics"

This significant political move, that could have a sequel in the courts, is expected to follow a three-day debate on the 2003 Budget, which is scheduled to begin tomorrow.

The question is: Will the PNC/R surprise its own members, the government and the nation, by attending the National Assembly and participating in the debate, during which it can raise all the issues over which it has disagreements with the governing party?

There is the feeling in some quarters that should the government continue to wait, indefinitely, on the PNC/R for desirable bi-partisan cooperation, it may come to discover that it has eroded its own electoral mandate to a threatening level.