Posted May 17th. 2002. 2002 - Special Feature by David Hinds

Giving the Dialogue constitutional status
in Parliament is a good idea, long overdue

As the leading newspaper in a country where a sizable section of the population still reads newspapers, Stabroek News plays an important role in setting the public agenda and shaping public attitude to relevant issues.

In this regard, many of the editorials over the last three weeks, whether one agrees with their stances or not, have been quite helpful to the public conversation on contemporary Guyana. That both the PNC and PPP have had cause to officially respond to these editorials indicates that Stabroek News is touching the right nerves. For too long the paper has given these two parties a free ride. It has pampered them by frequently justifying their shortcomings and applauding their half measures, in particular those of the governing party. The paper has not been decisive in its condemnation of bad governance and corruption and the general political game playing of both major parties.

A clear example of this pampering has been the paper's attitude to the Hoyte-Jagdeo dialogue. By supporting a narrow objective of the dialogue, Stabroek News has helped to legitimize what has turned out to be a near farce. It is, therefore, quite refreshing to see a change in Stabroek News' stance ("Tilting the Balance" May 8, 2002). The call for the dialogue to be "given constitutional status within parliament with its reports subject to debate" represents a big change in Stabroek News' position and should be endorsed and pursued. Up till now, Stabroek's rationale for supporting the dialogue has been confined to its role in stopping the post-election violence and its utility in facilitating cooperation between the two parties. This new position correctly situates the dialogue within the wider context of shared or real inclusive governance and formal accountability. That is where it has to be in order for it to make any meaningful difference to the situation.

But I cannot resist the temptation to ask of Stabroek News-why now? In a letter published in the Stabroek News on November 19, 2001, I wrote the following in relation to the dialogue: "For it not to further complicate the situation, it has to be given statutory cover by making it part of the formal governance structure.

This will necessitate a change in the existing governance arrangements to bring them in line with this new orientation. The constant bickering between the two parties is clear evidence that the dialogue must be statutorily empowered; it can no longer be a holding mechanism, as it is becoming a heavy burden on the system." While my choice of words was different, I think I conveyed the very views, which Stabroek is now expressing. Perhaps the paper missed it, did not see the wisdom in it at that time, felt it was premature, or simply could not be bothered with the messenger.

At the risk of sounding self-serving, I feel that had it been picked up and elevated to the center of the debate in November, we might have saved the dialogue from ending up where it is today. One of my criticisms of Stabroek News is that while it affords peripheral voices like mine space to express our opinions, it tends to rely too heavily on the opinions of the social and political elites to drive home points even when we make the same points. The problem is that these elites for the most part have gone to sleep.

But the important thing is that Stabroek News has now called for a more meaningful dialogue. But, there are serious implications involved here, for this is an alternative route to executive power sharing. If the dialogue becomes responsible to parliament, then the committees it set up will also have to be statutorily covered. This means that there will be two separate centers of executive power- the one party (the elected government), and the joint executive (the dialogue structure). The challenge would be to integrate the two so as to avoid inevitable conflict and overlapping. There is both a structural and constitutional and a political challenge involved here. Is it too late?

Finally, even as I applaud Stabroek News' progressive stance, I am dismayed at the suggestion that the speaker should chair the parliamentary committees. Isn't the speaker a PPP member? This is what I mean by pampering the PPP. How about GAP/WPA and ROAR chairing the committees? Maybe it's a non-starter, but at least put it on the table.

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.