The proposal by politician and academic Dr Rupert Roopnaraine to introduce "shared governance" at the level of the neighbourhood democratic councils (NDC) is generating mixed reviews from the political parties.
Roopnaraine, speaking at a Rotary Club dinner last Friday, proposed that the government should formally end the life of the present councils elected since 1994 and appoint interim councils whose membership would be divided equally between the governing and opposition parties under a co-chairmanship arrangement. The interim councils would be in place until new local government reforms are implemented. He said that under the arrangement the parties should take the opportunity to appoint persons who were leaders in their communities in their own right rather than party activists.
He made the proposal as way of seeing whether shared governance could work rather than rejecting it as unworkable as the PPP has done.
The Working People's Alliance (WPA) of which Roopnaraine is co-leader believes that it is a suggestion that is interesting and worthy of consideration by all the parties.
WPA member Desmond Trotman said, "We need to find new ways to take the country forward. It is the kind of suggestion that we need to give some kind of consideration to and all the parties should look at it in a macro-way to see if it could at all be adopted."
Trotman added that if it were to work at the NDC level then steps should be made to make the required arrangements to have it implemented at the national level.
ROAR's Ravi Dev says he would support any initiative, which promotes co-operation and would have no difficulty in supporting shared governance at the level of the NDC's. However, he does not believe that if the arrangement works at that level it could necessarily be transferred to the national level unless the nature of the politics at the national level becomes less competitive.
Dev sees the arrangement at the national level as being different to that at the local level and shared governance or power sharing would require a number of system changes. He says at the national level the parties are involved in a competition in a we/them situation, which makes co-operation difficult.
James McAllister who chaired the PNCR committee, which formulated its proposals on shared governance, sees Dr Roopnaraine's proposals as being a bit premature. He feels the proposals were made out of frustration at the PPP's rejection of the concept and as result were looking at finding a softer sell for the concept.
McAllister cautions that the issue was too important to be overtaken by frustration. He says the PPP and PNCR had up to now only exchanged views from a distance and have not yet engaged each other in a discussion on their respective views.
He says the Social Partners' process would provide an opportunity for the two parties to engage each other in discussions on their respective positions as well as the positions put forward by the other political parties engaged in the process.
Commenting on the proposal, McAllister does not see shared governance at the NDC level working in an environment where there is still the competition for resources at the national level. He says shared governance at the local level has to complement shared governance at the national level.
McAllister says the PNCR sees the problem as a top down situation where the competition at the top is transferred to the supporters at the local level and this corrupts the naturally cordial relations between the supporters of the parties outside of the election campaign period.
He observes that the supporters of the political parties normally live together fairly well in their communities and even if shared governance were to work at this level it does not follow that the results would be the same, given the competition at the national level.
He concedes that there is a need for some measure of co-operation at the local level and that the "winner-not-take-all" approach has merit. But he sees a contradiction in the involvement of the political parties at the NDC level since those appointed would not necessarily be the best leaders but those who can best serve the interest of the parties.
McAllister says the involvement of the political parties would mean decisions being taken outside of the community. It was in recognition of this fact that the PNCR has withdrawn from contesting elections at the NDC level so as to allow the real community leaders to emerge.
Commenting on the PPP's proposition that the amendments to the constitution should be fully implemented and given a chance to work before a new proposal is tried, McAllister calls it a survival mechanism that would allow the opposition to be placated but not have a say in the decision-making process.
He says the PNCR believes that the amendments do not go far enough and the party does not have to await their implementation to come to this conclusion. He says the changes are at the parliamentary level and that parliament does not now meet except to approve some bills the government needs to carry on its work.
McAllister, alluding to neighbouring Trinidad and Tobago, says it does not matter how efficient the parliament could have been, the Manning government was able to carry on without convening parliament for about six months.
He reiterates that the politicians of this country owe the Guyanese people more than just survival, as in Haiti and Suriname. Mechanisms were needed which would allow them not only to survive but grow and proper like in Malaysia or Singapore.
McAllister says that any leader who does not have such a vision for Guyana should pack up and go home.
Returning to the PNCR's own shared governance proposal, McAllister says the idea was gaining increasing acceptance with organisations such as the Trades Union Congress and the Guyana Human Rights Association, and they are encouraged by the response with regards to the principle of shared governance.
He says the PNCR at this stage would encourage those who accept the principle of shared governance to dedicate themselves to ensure that people who matter - that is the Guyanese people as a whole - have the final say.
Stabroek News has been unable to contact the leader of The United Force for a comment and a PPP official told this newspaper that Roopnaraine's proposal had not as yet been given the kind of consideration that would allow him to offer a comment.