RESIDENT Jimmy Carter's recent visit to Guyana to assess the status of efforts to move forward the process of high-level dialogue for improved governance, seems to have had some effect in new stirrings in both the ruling PPP/C and the main opposition PNC/R.
Carter's commitment to constitutional governance, the democratic process and respect for fundamental human rights has acquired worldwide recognition and admiration.
He speaks with a moral authority on such issues that political parties and governments familiar with him and the mission of the Carter Center - named after him -can only ignore to their own hurt.
On his latest visit to Guyana, at the invitation of President Bharrat Jagdeo, he more than hinted that unless the major political parties get their acts together in resuming governance dialogue in all seriousness, it would make no sense in the Carter Center re-establishing a physical presence in this country.
Well intentioned as it may be, however, the Carter Center cannot be seen as running away from a challenge it originally accepted when it became involved in the restoration of electoral democracy and constitutional governance in Guyana in 1992 after some 24 years of undemocratic rule based on rigged elections.
The fact that it is actively engaged in some 20 countries, in accordance with the laudable goals of the Carter Center, must not be expediently used to opt out from its own independent, on-the-ground monitoring of initiatives, or lack thereof, at good faith negotiations between the governing and opposition parties in Guyana's national interest.
The Carter Center would know, or should, that while the governing PPP/C and President Jagdeo may have failed to pursue with more vigour and creative imagination efforts at securing the cooperation of the PNC/R, the reality is, that party is still to come to terms with its failure to win three successively held elections and remains obsessed in throwing up hurdles instead of removing them.
Having played crucial roles for both the 1992 and 1997 national elections, civil society itself now betrays a sense of fatigue to help energise efforts for national consultation that could inspire bi-partisan cooperation.
This could be partly the result of the civil society movement having had its own integrity compromised by some of its constituent members as well as the failure of the leadership of the two dominant parties to end the blame-shifting words-game to justify over the current high-level dialogue impasse.
Corbin/Jagdeo surprises
Last week there came two surprising positions from President Jagdeo and the PNCR leader, Robert Corbin. They coincided with an observation in a refreshing editorial in the Guyana Chronicle titled `Wake up call’.
The editorial noted that "continued engagement (between Jagdeo and Corbin), much desired by so many here, depends on how quickly and firmly the major players can mend the political fences and keep the communication door open..."
The following day, August 19, came the first of the two surprises: President Jagdeo was reported in the Stabroek News as being ready to resume discussions with Opposition Leader Corbin and would like him "to contact me by telephone".
Instead of such political sophistry - uncharacteristic of his mentor, Cheddi Jagan -Jagdeo could have instead displayed presidential magnanimity by publicly stating his intention to telephone Corbin for them to come up with new initiatives to resolve some of the more pressing outstanding problems.
A reputedly voracious reader and extremely pace-setting hard worker and achiever, in the tradition of the late Cheddi Jagan, President Jagdeo must now also show a capacity to listen and be tolerant of dissent - while time permits.
The second element of surprise was provided by Corbin at his party's weekly press conference: Against the backdrop of the stirrings resulting from President Carter's mission to Guyana, Corbin said that the PNCR would now be "testing" the government's intention in several areas for cooperation, based on the May 6, 2003 signed accord he and the President Jagdeo had signed.
Revealing little of the leadership qualities of either Forbes Burnham or Desmond Hoyte, Corbin's prescribed "test" suggests that for his party's cooperation - including doing what it ought to be doing anyway - participate in the business of Parliament - the government must first agree to, among other demands, ensure equitable time on state-owned media.
If the PNCR were to have its way - which I do not see happening - this would include broadcasts by the National Communications Network (NCN) of the party's weekly press conference; its `Nation Watch’ programme plus a weekly feature on activities by its leader, Corbin.
How very novel, some may say, and politically unrealistic too. Such a demand by an opposition party will find NO positive response from ANY government of the Caribbean Community.
The moreso since, as is the case in Guyana, state-owned NCN is not required to broadcast the programmes and activities of the governing PPP/C that the PNCR is demanding for itself.
The Carter Center may perhaps inquire, as it remains engaged with Guyana, whether this is part of the PNCR's unstated intention to introduce in resumed Jagdeo-Corbin dialogue the idea of shared governance.
Or is it simply throwing up more hurdles to bi-partisan cooperation for much desired political stability and improved governance resulting from structured consultations?
For a party that had made such a farce of multi-party governance based on free and fair elections, and which had demonstrated unmistakable contempt under two Presidents for the consultative process, Corbin cannot expect to be taken seriously that he is indeed interested in restarting the high-level dialogue process.
Civil Society
If civil society wishes to again become an active and respected partner in the process of consultative democracy and good governance, then it has no alternative but to raise a collective voice - the sooner the better - for the PNCR to drop all its pretences and return to Parliament when the current recess is over.
The delegates at the forthcoming biennial congress of the PNCR can demonstrate their own independence and forward thinking by seriously questioning how the party's parliamentarians can honestly justify their continuing boycott of parliament while faithfully receiving money from the national treasury for NO WORK done in that highest forum of the nation.
If there is indeed need for "testing" then both the PPP/C and PNCR have homework to complete.
For its part, more than engaging in a recitation of which of the committees or mechanisms identified in the so-called `Jagdeo-Corbin Communiqué’ of March 6, 2003, is functioning, the government must be ready to table for debate that historic document when parliament reconvenes.
It is shocking to know that for all the rhetoric on both sides about who are not really cooperating, the ruling PPP/C has not seized the initiative to make the Jagdeo-Corbin Communiqué a record of Parliament and open it to national debate.
The proceedings could be broadcast, live if possible, for the Guyanese people to be made more fully aware of the governance issues involved and of initiatives being pursued for advancement.
Debate on the provisions of the National Development Strategy (NDS) must also begin, as one of the initiatives proposed by President Carter.
Perhaps President Jagdeo and the PPP/C may wish to also consider promoting some changes in the conduct of the business of the National Assembly itself by retiring as Minister for Parliamentary Affairs and Leader of Government Business its very experienced parliamentarian and veteran loyalist, Reepu Daman Persaud - now in constantly failing health.
Alternatively, as some feel, it may be the occasion to strengthen the functions of the Leader of Government Business, constitutionally the function of the Prime Minister (Samuel Hinds) with the appointment of someone on the government benches to help as a deputy leader instead of maintaining both a Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Leader of Government Business.
The PPP/C can drop some of its own smugness and pursue new options open to it without having it to be frustrated or side-tracked by unreasonable and unrealistic demands of the PNCR, such as that party's latest bid to have what it wrongly calls "equitable" access to state-owned media.
It is such unsophisticated demands that seem to make the PNCR appear more like a party caught in a time warp than one engaged in honest bi-partisan efforts to end the impasse over structured consultations for improved governance.
A question of immediate relevance is: Will there be anything new and promising coming out of the PNCR's biennial congress starting on Friday, August 27?