Since their last round of meetings on June 12 and 18, President Jagdeo and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Corbin, have not met and in the various undertakings that they set themselves there has been inevitable drift.

The dialogue between the two leaders remains the single-most important development on the political landscape since the breakdown of the previous attempt between President Jagdeo and the late Mr Hoyte. The current effort requires the fullest support of the public but at the same time the architects of this process and their aides must ensure that there is clarity of purpose, public efforts at problem solving and continuous follow-up. Unfortu-nately, the secondary dialogue encounters have been sadly lacking in these areas and the ingrained public skepticism over the antics of our politicians will be fortified by the continuing skirmishes by representatives of both sides.

The dialogue has created a new theatre of political engagement but it has not catered for what happens in the older, more established and venerable arenas such as Parliament, political meetings, routine press conferences and on the ground. How much criticism should be tolerated of the ongoing process by one party of the other? It seems that this issue has raised hackles on both sides and perhaps in their next encounter the two leaders should attempt to set broad guidelines for the conduct of their officials as it relates to criticism of matters that are currently the subject of dialogue.

In addition, there is a stream of other issues pending which if not addressed could become flashpoints.

The two sides remain at odds over the all-important procurement legislation and the PNCR is intent on having its concerns address-ed in the wake of the government using its parliamentary majority to have the bill passed. Is there room for further compromise in this area? The leaders should provide guidance.

A controversy has since blown up over whether the draft broadcast bill adequately represents the views of the Jagdeo/Hoyte committee. There is a larger issue at stake here. The joint committee’s view represented a limited perspective on how the broadcasting law should be crafted and there are other interest groups still to be heard from. Nevertheless, it would lower the political heat and improve the conditions for a successful outcome were the two leaders to recognise areas of the joint report which were still to be addressed and acknowledge that that report was not to be the end all as it relates to the bill.

The failure to have the four crucial service commissions set up even though the May 6 communique signed by the two leaders said that “immediate steps” should be taken to reconstitute them is unacceptable. The judicial, public, teaching and police service commissions have myriad issues before them that need urgent attention. The sloth with which this matter has been addressed is most disheartening. More than three months after the words “immediate steps” were inscribed on the communiqué not a single one of the service commissions is in place. If the various groups which are required to hold meetings for nominations to the commissions are not doing this with dispatch then some change has to be contemplated to make the process more efficient. The Teaching Service Commission could have certainly been reconstituted in time for the new school year as its composition is different from the others. Not even this has been done. Even the Appointive Committee, where one thought that seasoned MPs would have been acutely aware of the urgency of their task, has taken its consultations down to the wire in the period leading up to the annual parliamentary recess. The leaders should give their undivided attention to this process and slash away at the red tape and indolence that is preventing these commissions from functioning.

In relation to the Jagdeo/Hoyte local government committee - we have discordant views coming from the co-chairman on the way forward. Certainly not the kind of situation the dialogue was supposed to produce.

As to the June promise of a supervisory and monitoring mechanism for the dialogue, this is one bride that has been jilted at the altar. There is no sign - at least not in the eye of the public - that there is any useful supervision or monitoring of the process being done by anyone. While an ambitious modus operandi for the monitoring and supervisory process was set out it doesn’t appear as if anyone has been monitoring or supervising the implementation of it.

There are other critical issues in addition to these that have to be addressed by the two leaders. They could also do two other things to enhance the process. First, they could agree to meet once a month without prejudice to meetings within this period as required. Secondly, their representatives could hold periodic joint briefings to speak about decisions and implementation and thereby bolster the reality that this is a joint enterprise between the President and Opposition Leader rather than the public having to hear separate and often contentious evaluations of progress from Dr Luncheon and a panel at Sophia.