Perhaps even the peoples of Russia, China, Cuba and North Korea (DPRK), with their own peculiar, oftimes imposed electoral arrangements, look forward to some form of voting...choosing. (I’ve often wondered if those thousands of Cubans, say, who risk their lives yearly to escape their own democracy, really stay away from their brand of elections).

Reasonable, rational individuals of a particular level of intelligence will listen to candidates at election time, during the volatile, exciting, frenetic campaign hustings and make choices. Just who he/she will cast a vote for and why?

Those considerations must, or should, include the candidate’s suitability, sincerity, competence, track record and reputation, morals and character, soundness of promised policies and programmes and the status or record of the party or group being represented. Among other issues.

The vote is then cast, secure in the confidence (hopefully) that my choices, my representatives would execute those policies and programmes promised. And would do other implied things to benefit me and the nation. Only under extraordinary circumstances after they are elected would I expect them to veer drastically from the programmes, structures and forms of governance under, or for which I elected them. Even if those circumstances arise I would expect the elected party to then consult those who caused them to stroll the corridors of power. But do you realise what happens here, after the results of the polls have been announced?

The bully’s ‘share’

Since 1992 and with fearsome intensity from 1997 and 2001, the major opposition has made it a virtue of not accepting the results of the elections.

Years ago I shared the insight from a former PNC top man who explained the `routine strategy’ of filing elections petitions after losing. That’s after other routine demonstrations/objections against the conduct of the chairman and his Elections Commission and the count and/or the swearing in, etc., etc...

So since `elections aren’t all’ - especially if you didn’t or don’t `win’ - the party that achieves the right to form a government, suspect as it now or then becomes, is maneouvred and bullied into various compromises.

It is forced to accept compromises that I didn’t vote for. But I’m asked to understand the good sense, the dire reality and necessity of `sharing power’, for example. Opposition people, governmental experts, political scientists and editorial writers persuade me as to the `justness’ of inclusion.

We need the peace to survive, to develop. The bully is entitled to share, because he represents a significant proportion of those who didn’t `win’ on election day. Sure. Even I accept that.

The victorious party and its governmental structures, programmes and attitude should ensure that all share this land and its resources. (I understand that that is the basis of all problems. Hence, inclusion!!)

So now, good voters, our Big Beautiful, Blighted Beleaguered Land is now in the fore-front of the concept, introduction and practice of power-sharing, inclusionary government by whatever description. Nowhere else in our Region has any elected administration agreed to so many parliamentary committees, commissions and governance arrangements. So much so that one young arrogant opposition fellow is still demanding executive power-sharing. Enough concessions weren’t made by the government - regarding the Procurement Bill - it is claimed. The government has no business exercising its mandate anymore, it seems. `Select Committee’, or else! `Inclusion’ is racing on so swiftly that one gets the feeling that the opposition is no longer the opposition - or the alternative government. It is the government.

Now, I understand - even if I don’t appreciate - that this elected government only responds to protest, demonstration - and bullyism, however, political or `constitutional’ it is executed.

Well, my position on all this, as I near 60, having identified the principal villain of the political piece/peace for many years now, is to join the Stabroek News editorial writers in hoping the inclusion that the parliamentary and constitutional committees, the partisan and sectoral committees and which the scores of commissions suggest - and should engender - does emerge and happen.

I know full well that nothing but the reclamation of full power would satisfy the major opposition, but I hope the Stabroek sages are right: inclusion might give all of us a chance.

Meanwhile, even as I will never discourage the youth from making electoral choices on any Election Day, I will advise myself whether to vote again. Or, just vote for a chosen bully!

Robert in (political) paradise?

What’s this I’ve been hearing R.H.O? You’ve been preaching in Paradise from Alan’s Pulpit? Credible reports suggest that, in preaching to your own - already - converted, you reverted to the old war-cries. Tut-Tut!

In four - four pieces - I counselled restraint. Now that you’ve been elevated to the pedestal of `alternative President’. Yes, you must convince the faithful that you’re still fiery (old YSM) and ready to protest vigorously but you must agree that you should come off now as responsible.

Remember too, those foreigners - who `consulted’ recently - are still watching! And yes, I took your point, in your very first 1763 Monument Leader’s address, that inclusive government is no alternative to actually `winning’ and establishing the power on polling day.

Remember Comrade, `Do The Right Thing’. Let the others speak on Thursdays. And on the Hoyte Blackman’s TV. You make a thing of maintaining the dignity. Down with destruction!

Ponder...

1) Who would you vote to be the Best Opposition MP running government? Watch Channel Nine on Sunday, then call me.

2) What took you so long Mayor of Georgetown? Trucks, Donkey Carts, Vendors. Yes, they deserve a living. But not by violating other people’s rights. It’s tiring...

3) Do you realise that if ever the PNC wins again, these constitutional committees mean there will always be inclusion? Huh?

4) Sad isn’t it? That teachers are advised to be stingy with their time and attention. My-my-my. I know their plight. But how times have changed.

5) The biggest blight which descended on this land decades ago, in my opinion, was the electric power crisis. A generation grew up in, and still knows darkness.

6) Couldn’t we get, once again, a true National Orchestra?

7) Stand by folks: The imported Guyanese `summer’ is here again. Look out for our own fall and winter!

8) Playing with the remote on Tuesday night I came across the Channel 6 “Voice of the People”. It starred the redoubtable and accomplished Dr Walter Ramsahoye. The brilliant physician has to be the one person who can easily outdo the formal opposition in castigating and condemning the PPP/C top brass.

Absolute disdain and contempt for the abilities and performance of Luncheon, Hinds, Ramsammy et al - who have “no innovation, creativity or the ability to conceptualise...”

Wonder what he thinks of ministers Insanally, Bisnauth, Jeffrey and Westford, for example? You go Doc!?

9) Would Forbes Burnham have “endorsed” the Wilton Park conference? (What’s that? Different times, different circumstances?)

`Til next week!