Let us start by acknowledging that there is no such thing as a perfect system of governance. As Winston Churchill once put it, democracy is a pretty flawed system but it's better than the rest. But idealists will continue to dream of that perfect government where the hassle and clamour of a democracy are absent and all is peace and love.
Let us next agree that in all societies, even the most peaceful and developed, thinking persons continue to examine the existing methods of government and look for ways to improve them.
The People's National Congress Reform PNCR has put to the ruling People's Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) a proposal for executive power-sharing. What this means in essence is that if it were accepted the PPP/C and the PNCR would after the next elections share the government according to the proportion of votes they obtained. This proposal was prompted partly by the analysis that if ethnic voting patterns persist it may be difficult for the PNCR to win an election, though the increasing Amerindian vote may make this argument less cogent than it might otherwise have been. But the main argument is that power-sharing would put an end to the ethnic strife that continually threatens to make the country ungovernable by enabling the two main parties to work together.
In its response, the PPP/C argued that there had been important parliamentary reforms towards more inclusive governance and that there was not at this stage sufficient trust between the parties to make power-sharing feasible.
Can power-sharing work? Let us look at some of the arguments that have been raised against it. First of all, there is the danger of gridlock. The two parties may be unable to agree on certain essential matters like a budget or important laws. How would that problem be solved? On the face of it, the party which had won the most votes at the election and had the most seats in the cabinet could decide the issue by a majority vote. But would that in every case be acceptable to the minority party? Clearly, measures could be devised requiring unanimity or giving veto powers on some issues and indeed the PNCR has come up with some such suggestions in its proposal. This is clearly an area that would require careful negotiation if a power-sharing agreement was to be reached to avoid the danger of gridlock.
Secondly, a PPP/C-PNCR coalition would leave only a nominal opposition. In Fiji, where power-sharing was tried and failed, in an effort to deal with this problem it was provided that backbenchers could speak against bills when they were debated in Parliament. Of course GAP, WPA and ROAR would provide some opposition in Parliament. But would this be adequate, given their limitations of resources and personnel? In effect, such a situation might put an enormous strain on institutions like the media to monitor government actions and keep ministers on their toes.
Thirdly, in the nature of the case most of the real issues would be settled in private discussions between the governing parties in a power-sharing cabinet so that there would be a real danger that parliament would be presented with a fait accompli and debates might be even more perfunctory than they already are.
Fourthly, power-sharing may harden rather than soften ethnic division by recognising ethnic blocs and ethnic leaders as their representatives. On the other hand, the working together could after a while create new alliances and respect.
Fifthly, suppose some ministers, on either side, are not performing well can the other side complain? This issue led to serious problems and real tensions in the A.N.R. Robinson 'one love' government in Trinidad.
Obviously, power-sharing is no panacea and no bed of roses. It would require a certain level of political culture, a willingness to compromise, and some sort of shared basic programme to make it work. One would have to say that based on current performances the outlook is not encouraging. Yet perhaps the exercise of working together could itself create a fresh impetus and goodwill and a level of stability that would permit development.
Sometimes, chances have to be taken in an effort to find a new plateau or paradigm. Power-sharing should be actively debated, not in the sloganeering terms in which the discussion has tended to be conducted so far, but in more detail considering some of the mechanisms and some of the pitfalls. It would be useful if some of the younger politicians, on both sides, could deal with some of the issues raised in the PNCR's proposal in more depth. As they stand, those proposals represent the most significant contribution to what should be an ongoing debate.