Posted May 15th. 2004 - Special Feature by David Hinds

Corbin's New Position Represent a Revolt

Guyana's opposition leader's announcement a few weeks ago that he has abandoned the misnamed constructive engagement with President Jagdeo and would replace it with a broader all- party intervention marks a significant shift in recent leadership politics. When one takes into consideration that the PNC leader also proposes to place Power Sharing at the top of the agenda, then the shift takes on even greater importance. Of course one has to always wonder about the PNC's sincerity and/or its ability to resist the PPP's baiting which takes the form of taunts and ridicule about wanting to achieve power through the back door. The truth is that no party in Guyana since 1955 has attained power through the front door, if front door means free and fair elections that are free from fear. No election in Guyana has been free from racial fear and insecurity.

Having said that, it must be reiterated that in the context of Guyana's inflexible political habits, Mr. Corbin's announcements offer another opportunity for forward movement on the overriding issue of how power contestation and distribution will be approached in the future. I have long held the position that dialogue between the two leaders without constitutional cover is basically another opportunity to prove how distrustful they are of each other. President Jagdeo and the PPP have rejected power sharing on the basis of insufficient trust. But that's a clear case of promoting distrust and then claim that it's the chief problem.

My own support for power sharing springs partly from the view that when political actors are given incentives for cooperation and/or where constitutional and societal checks are placed on adversarial politics the possibilities for trust increase considerably. A major problem with the various dialogues has been the issue of implementation. Since decisions by the leaders are not binding, the question of implementation is left to the political whims of the ruling party. Informal non-binding dialogues between tribal leaders must function as a clearinghouse for the larger worrisome issues such as governance, constitutional reform, national disasters and defense. In this regard Mr. Corbin is right in elevating power sharing to the top of the agenda as that issue speaks to the overriding issues of racial fear and insecurity, governance, and democratization.

There are a few things that must be acknowledged here. By bringing ROAR and WPA into the dialogue there is an acknowledgement that representation in Guyana has to be seen beyond mere electoral support. While these two "small parties" lack electoral support, their value to the process lies in their ideas, visions and potential for tempering things. The same reasoning applies to the participation of Civil Society. It is, therefore, vital for ROAR and the WPA to avoid appearing to or actually taking sides with one side or the other. Another thing that needs to be acknowledged is that dialogue for the sake of talking or to deal with things that the parliament should deal with will be useless. The dialogue must have a primary agenda item-national healing and reconstruction. It must set itself the task of removing the obstacles to and erecting building blocs for shared nationhood.

The other thing that needs to be acknowledged is that in the current atmosphere reason and patience instead of confrontation hold more promise of lasting peace and justice. Some individuals and groups have roughed me up for daring to urge them towards a comprehensive investigation of the rapid decline of the rule of law in Guyana. Others have reminded me of the times when I supported and participated in the politics confrontation, while some have even suggested that I am now afraid of revolt.

I do not envy the supporters of revolt, for I think that when revolt is not premised in political common sense, it eventually consumes everyone, including the advocates. When armed revolt is encouraged in a highly charged racial atmosphere, the outcome is beneficial to none. Revolt against wrongdoing is a moral and democratic right that I will always defend. But revolt takes many forms and there are times when revolt characterized by reason is most necessary and effective. What is instinctive is not always necessary

Violent revolt may be inevitable if the rulers close all doors to a peaceful solution to Guyana's problems. Some have argued that the threat of violence is necessary to keep the PPP in line, but there is a very thin line between the threat of violence and actual violence. For all the PPP's bullying, insensitivity, corruption, and authoritarianism, all doors to a reasoned and just solution are not closed. And so long as doors are opened, resort to armed revolt is a sign of political laziness. Mr. Corbin's pronouncements on the dialogue and the PNC-WPA-ROAR decision to call for a wider probe into violence represent a major revolt, which is just what the doctor orders.

David Hinds lectures in Caribbean and Africana Studies at Arizona State University in the USA. He is also a political and social commentator who has written extensively on Guyana and Caribbean politics. More of his writings can be found on his GuyanaCaribbeanPolitics.com website.