The withdrawal of the PNCR Leader Mr Robert Corbin from the so-called "constructive engagement" with President Bharrat Jagdeo probably means the end of one-on-one talks between the two men for the duration of this PPP/C term. Coming in the wake of the earlier acrimonious collapse of the dialogue between Mr Jagdeo and the late PNCR Leader Desmond Hoyte, the end of this engagement is unfortunate and the best must now be made of the new circumstances.
The PNCR now has the dubious distinction of twice withdrawing prematurely from talks which still offered hope while President Jagdeo has the similarly unflattering record of being unable to convince successive PNCR leaders of his ability to deliver the goods.
Even with the extremely serious death squad crisis engulfing the government, we had appealed for the talks between the two sides to continue. No matter how grave the domestic circumstances or serious the differences between the two leaders, established channels of communication should never be switched off as they were by Mr Corbin. He has allowed the extremists within and outside of his party to influence him in this direction. On the other hand, President Jagdeo has failed to produce dialogue results of sufficient magnitude and quality that the PNCR would find attractive enough to stay. He has also refused to grasp the seriousness of the death squad scandal and the public clamour that it be handled via an independent inquiry. Therefore, both leaders bear responsibility in some measure for the failure of this engagement.
It must also be said that the mismatched motives of the two sides could never have provided a lasting basis for the talks. Despite the talk of inclusive governance and responsible opposition behaviour, the two sides have diametrically opposed reasons for being in the talks. The PPP/C government wants to bring the opposition to heel to enable it to govern in a stable environment and to foster economic development and investment while the PNCR wants to position itself to secure a win at the national elections. With national elections a mere two years away, the engagement was hardly likely to continue for much longer given the nature of the current two-party competition for power.
So the citizens of the country are now left to ponder their uncertain future in this vortex of political distrust. During recent bouts of political stress, crime has surged and it has been particularly devastating because of the weakness of the police force. Even though there has been a change in the leadership of the police force, its ability will not be transformed overnight and so the mayhem that befell the country in 2002/2003 could easily return as evidenced by already increasing crime levels. Therefore, at the minimum, the two leaders, President Jagdeo and Mr Corbin, should commit to meeting regularly on crime and cooperate to ensure that there is no further deterioration of the situation. A joint statement or television message could help to establish unanimity on this crucial issue.
For the future, Mr Corbin's call for the opening up of the talks to other groups is clearly the only way there can be a resumption and it would be a welcome change from the two-party hogging of the political space. The innate distrust harboured by the PPP/C and the PNCR for each other hardly permitted a healthy atmosphere or good-faith bargaining. It was therefore very easy for the talks to be undermined as there was no third party at the talks to foster trust between the two sides and to assess where the truth lay and who was making an effort and who was not. That kind of arbiter is needed now to prevent the Guyanese people from again being lulled into a false and fleeting sense of security. The previous remote assessment of the Jagdeo/Corbin talks by a group of stakeholders was not adequate.
It is now time for the much vaunted civil society to walk to the batting crease and face the music. They can fare no worse than the West Indies. That doesn't mean that there won't be bickering over exactly who or what is civil society or who leans in this or that direction. That should not, however, prevent civil society from taking on the responsibility for helping to normalise political relations, reduce societal tensions and to produce positive outcomes for the supporters of both of the main parties.
It will require two things: a precisely defined and manageable agenda for progress as opposed to the wide-ranging menu set by the two leaders which promised much and delivered very little, and a small core of expediters with good management skills who could produce results as had been initially envisaged by the Social Partners initiative.
The PPP/C and the PNCR must also change interlocutors. The Luncheons and Carberrys are redolent of a past encrusted with failure, acrimony and bitterness. Fresh talent uninhibited by the deadening weight of the history of these two parties is needed.
There are many issues that the two sides can take on with third party mediation even if the inexorable march to general elections is not far away. These could include security on the East Coast, immediate work in depressed communities, house lot allocation and training/employment opportunities.
As unfortunate as the failure of the talks was we all have to hope that something better might emerge.