Posted March 11th. 2002 - Special Feature by David Hinds

A Second Reply to Stabroek and Panday's Civil Disobedience

Dear Editor:

Your editorial on the viability of power sharing (2-28-02) is most welcome. Given your record of seriousness and impartiality, your editorials in our circumstances tend to carry much more weight than several letters as they suggest to the populace that the issue is indeed a serious one. You are on the ball when you point to the difficulties inherent in the power-sharing concept, which as you correctly say have been identified by Dr Lijphart and others. But whether those difficulties weigh against the potential of power sharing to forge nationhood and deepen democracy cannot be raised in isolation; they have to be tied to the concrete situation in the given country.

Obviously space does not allow me to address all of the difficulties you raised, but I will deal with one--gridlock. Gridlock seen in isolation is potentially counter-productive to governance. But within the context of particular situations, it could be a tool of democratization. Indeed one of the potential benefits of trying power sharing is the possibility for democratization as it brings more eyes and minds into the governance process. One thing I have been plugging away at, which seems to escape your attention, is that for Executive power sharing at the level of the central government or "horizontal power sharing" to mean anything, it must be supplemented by more power sharing between the national government and local governments or what I call "vertical power-sharing.

For me containing the racial conflict is only one of the potential benefits of power sharing, most importantly it must lead to more substantive democracy that currently obtains. Guyana faces both a racial problem and a crisis of democracy. The two are linked as there is an obvious tension-Westminster democracy handcuffs multiracial governance and racial conflict imprisons democratization. Power sharing aims at disintegrating that scenario. That is the framework upon which my advocacy and treatment of power sharing rest.

But back to gridlock. Is the threat of gridlock really a problem for Guyana? A close look at the political process seems to suggest that it is not. Guyana is already one of the most gridlocked countries in the world, even without power sharing. The government takes forever to make decisions when they bother to make them. Your paper has on numerous occasions taken them to task for that. But the present system, although armed with the device of swift decision-making, is victim to two elements of Guyana's peculiar political realities.

First, the decisions must pass muster among the various contending factions within the ruling party. Although the party is ideologically united, its leaders differ in terms of which section of the support base should benefit from government largesse and to what extent the needs and demands of the rival support base should be accommodated. There is both a class and racial factor that influence decision making in the major parties. Second, the very fact of a one-party/one race government in a volatile racially polarized society slows down decision-making. The ruling party has to always be mindful of the opposition negative veto in the form of sabotage and street force. The question has to always be asked: How would the PNC represent this decision to black people? Or, how would ROAR represent this among our supporters in the Indian community? Or would the WPA and the Stabroek News pick up the faults and run with them? Hence fashioning a decision that will not excite responses, which would endanger its implementation obviously takes time. In situations of extreme conflict, gridlock is inevitable regardless of the model of governance. The alternative would be rule by naked force as obtained under Mr. Burnham. I therefore make bold to say that gridlock can contribute to democratization if it encourages broader and closer scrutiny of government business.

The other consideration here is how often countries like Guyana are required to make quick decisions that endanger the country if they are delayed and what is the nature of the decisions the government makes. Has there ever been a major policy decision that would have cost the country dearly if it were delayed a few weeks. I respectfully submit Mr. Editor, that save for our responses to aggressions from our neighbors and natural disasters and decisions on what to do about opposition troublemakers such as Walter Rodney and the WPA, our governments have never been pressed to make speedy decisions. I hardly think that either the PPP or the PNC would filibuster a decision to deal with a breach in the sea defense or protect our territorial integrity.

Your observation that the failure to take the conversation to the people limits its effectiveness is on the ball. I publicly criticize the power sharers, including my own party, the WPA, for this. I was invited by the WPA last summer to come to Guyana to participate in such an exercise, but we only managed three meetings in Georgetown, Linden and Buxton. A decision to follow up on those meetings has not been implemented to date mainly due to problems of resources and availability of personnel.

But I am concerned about the suggestion that the conversation on power sharing has thus far been emotional and devoid of serious analysis. Yes there have been emotions and instinctive reactions-why not? But to say that there has been no serious analysis is unkind. There have been several. The WPA's proposal was not a skeleton; it was comprehensive. Clarence Ellis and Eric Phillips have done a detailed paper, which was sent to you for publication. Haslyn Parris has done a brilliant paper laying out some of the theoretical questions. Dr Kenneth King has both in writing and on an edition of the Spotlight TV show has addressed some of the theoretical aspects. Eusi Kwayana has over the years probed this subject in many of his writings. Aubrey Norton et al have tackled the subject beyond emotions. David Hinds did some "spelling out" in his presentation at the 2001 Walter Rodney Lecture. Perhaps, Mr. Editor, you are not aware of these works or you don't consider theoretical or open enough.

Yes we need more spelling out and open discussion of power sharing and other issues. But to say that the process has not begun is simply not true

Panday Has a Right to Protest

More than two months since the Trinidad and Tobago election, there has been no satisfactory resolution of the political "crisis" occasioned by the electoral results. Many people, including some Guyanese, opined that the president's decision to appoint Mr. Manning, the PNM leader, as Prime Minister averted a political crisis. The thinking seems to be that had he named Mr. Panday, Afro-Trinidadians would have gone on the rampage--something Indo-Trinidadians are less likely to do. That position makes assumptions about the political behavior of the two race groups that I do not share. But the assumption that Indo Trinidadians are docile or less confrontational in the face of injustice led many to believe that they, the Indo Trinidadians, would eventually accept the PNM government.

Mr. Panday has recently announced that if the PNM do not agree to his power-sharing proposal, he would lead his people on a campaign of civil disobedience. Suddenly sections of the business sector and the labor movement and other opinion shapers in Trinidad are condemning Mr. Panday. This is nothing short of dishonesty and political shortsightedness-- two ailments that have blighted our political process. In the process of looking for quick fixes to problems, both Civil Society and the schooled, but miseducated, elite often advise the political leaders to sacrifice long term solutions for short term stability.

The Trinidadian elites have learned well from their Guyanese counterparts who are more concerned with playing within the rules even when those rules serve as the platform for marginalization and injustice against half of the population. And when the marginalized take to the streets to vent their frustrations we condemn them and their party. This is exactly what is happening in Trinidad. Many remained silent or hid behind constitutionalism when Mr. Robinson made an obviously disastrous decision. I disagree with the view that Mr. Robinson acted in a constitutionally correct manner. But even if he did, could they not see that his decision constituted a grave injustice to the UNC and Indo Trinidadians? Now that the UNC has signaled its intention to protest that injustice, we condemn them for wanting to exercise their democratic right. Is the right to protest not a sacred right of the liberal democratic system we hold on to for dear life? Mr. Panday and the UNC have a constitutional and moral right to protest because neither party won the election, yet the one that got more votes is denied a share in government. Mr. Panday concedes the prime ministership and asks for half of the government-- isn't that fair?

The unions, the schooled elite, and other opinion shapers ought to get off Mr. Panday's back and lend their voices and energy to a campaign aimed at fashioning a political system of governance that guarantees justice and democracy for all Trinibagonians, regardless of race.

And to all those African Guyanese who support Mr. Manning's appointment, I say you are hypocritical. The PPP won a clear majority in Guyana and you deem them illegal; the PNM did not win a majority in Trinidad and you deem them legal. Finally, a question and an observation. Does the PPP support Mr. Panday's call for power sharing? Freedom House has been quite silent on this issue. They recently voiced open support for the Palestinian cause; what about supporting the struggle of their Indian brethren and sisteren in Trinidad for their due?

Those who represent the marginalized in Guyana should note that the UNC's move to civil disobedience supports a crystal clear objective-- half of the government. Mr. Panday is no supporter of power sharing; I doubt he likes it. But he recognizes that it is the only way in the present circumstances to ensure that his people have a say in decision making and protect them from victimization and marginalization. Note, he does not ask how it will work. The key here is that with the next government likely to preside over the benefits from the new oil-find, Mr. Panday does not want his people outside of the arena at this crucial juncture. Another very important observation is Mr. Panday's unambiguous protection of Indo-Trinidadians dignity and rights.

Dr Hinds is a University Lecturer and Political Commentator and Activist. He currently teaches Political Science at Glendale College and Mt San Antonio College in California. Please send your comments on this article to dhinds6106@aol.com. An archive of Dr Hinds' other writings can be found on his website-guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com.