It is becoming increasingly clear that the “constructive” dialogue between President Jagdeo and Opposition Leader Corbin is at risk of foundering for the lack of verifiable, good-faith implementation of decisions reached. It was the very toxin that doomed the Jagdeo/Hoyte talks to failure and the same fate beckons the current engagement.

During and following the breakdown of the Jagdeo/Hoyte encounters it was evident that the unstructured talks suffered from several defects. These included an unmanageable agenda, a lack of implementation and follow-up muscle, absence of good faith and a political and bureaucratic machinery that was out of touch with the direction that the leaders wanted the talks to go.

These very characteristics are now inhibiting the current talks between the President and Mr Corbin. In the aftermath of the Jagdeo/Hoyte debacle it was thought that if non-political actors were inserted into the process they would have a better chance of breathing life back into the process and restarting the talks. This was one of the reasons why the so-called Social Partners blossomed and began occupying a role at the centre of the political debate. Together with other groups and the interest of the Commonwealth Secretary General’s Special Envoy, Sir Paul Reeves, a process for resurrecting the talks got underway. It was interrupted by the untimely death of Mr Hoyte and the election of the new PNCR Leader with whom the President then began a dialogue. The Social Partners and other groups then withdrew into the background.

These talks which held much promise are now perched precariously following recent acrimonious accusations from both sides and a broadcast on a TV station by Mr Corbin expressing dissatisfaction with the rate of progress.

When the Jagdeo/Corbin rounds got underway in early May, it had been the fervent hope of the politics-weary citizenry that a clearly defined and workable monitoring mechanism would be constructed. This was not to be and it was not until the second set of meetings more than a month later that a monitoring and implementing mechanism was formulated - long after many of the tasks to come under its purview had already begun.

This mechanism entailed:

*the two leaders meeting periodically (we have suggested before that this be at least monthly without prejudice to other required meetings) to review progress and make adjustments;

*their high representatives preparing a schedule of matters to be implemented and meeting fortnightly to review progress, agree follow-up action, “dismantle bottlenecks in a timely fashion” and brief the leaders on the state of progress;

*the high representatives holding a periodic stakeholders’ briefing for other political parties, civil society, the diplomatic community and donors to review progress.

On the face of it this is an eminently feasible plan. The only problem is that it is being implemented by officials infused with decades of political orientation and training and for them to find common ground and agree on the simplest things is a Herculean task whenever they meet.

Three meetings were held by the high emissaries over the last week or so on the thorny issues surrounding the broadcast legislation, appointments to the service commissions and other areas and little progress has been made.

Three points are useful here. First, and based on their numerous encounters over many years, any mechanism that relies on the current high emissaries is unlikely to produce results. There is a debilitating chemistry among these individuals. As had been hoped for all along when the Social Partners were on the scene, the monitoring and implementation has to be ensconced in the hands of persons from outside political circles who won’t be shackled by politics or chained by history. Such a group would have clearance at the highest levels, personnel and the necessary financing to implement agreed actions. At the very least some new faces should be introduced by the leaders as their high emissaries. Are the parties so bereft of talent that they must rely on the same persons who have been involved in numerous failed, pointless and acrimonious encounters over the years? We hope not.

Second, it is clear that the leaders have marshalled an agenda that is too wide-ranging and onerous for the tenuous talks that are now underway.

It would be a better idea were they to have a more focused action plan where measurable and significant progress can be made rather than having a sprawling Roman empire-type discussion. The agenda at the moment covers dozens of entirely different issues which require not only detailed work but the requisite management skills which are in short supply. As a means of getting the talks back on track, the leaders should pick five key issues and work urgently to have these taken to their denouement.

Third, it is of absolute importance that the talks underway are seen by the public as a joint enterprise by the two sides and not a venture involving combatants lobbing salvoes at each other from afar.

As we have said before there must be joint briefings for not only the “stakeholders” but the public - the oft forgotten and the most important stakeholder of all. Were the two sides to hold these joint encounters and show that they `own’ the process rather than snipe at each other at their weekly press conferences much would be achieved.

The dialogue is of urgent importance in maintaining political calm and creating a nurturing environment for the business sector and investment in the country. Guyana desperately needs these things and our leaders must play their part.