Commentary
guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com

Even under a power-sharing constitution there will be elections

By Sherwood Lowe - Posted February 1st. 2006

I add my voice in support of the call for shared governance (a government of national unity) to be in place before the next general election. In so doing, I do not agree with all of the points made in the ACDA ad.

The immediate benefit of the ACDA ad is it has stirred a highly necessary debate among the PNCR support base about what must be its due rights and powers in national decision-making and what must be done to achieve those rights. At the same time, the ad keeps open the broader debate on the most suitable political system for Guyana and all Guyanese.

The debate among the PNCR support base must however avoid certain confusions and misunderstandings that, if not removed, can cause damage and undermine the intended objective.

These are (i) even under a power-sharing constitution, there will be, at the end of the day, national and regional elections. All supporters therefore who have not registered must register now. All who can vote must be on the voters' list. We must also totally understand that the results of an election held under a shared governance constitution will be used to determine how the government is "shared". Therefore, the PNCR must do the best it could by getting all the support it could. We would solve little if in the new system the PNCR got far less than 50% of the votes because of low registration and low voting-day turnout of its supporters;

ii) because there will eventually be an election, then GECOM's management of the election preparation process is vitally important. All of us need to pay closer attention to what's happening (or not happening) at GECOM. In Sunday's Kaieteur News, the PNCR provided an update on this matter. We need to follow the PNCR's weekly press conferences and TV discussions to keep in the know. We must not relent on the demand that GECOM must deliver free, fair and acceptable elections;

(iii) this debate should not be about who will win or who will lose the next election. And it is here I differ with ACDA. ACDA predicts a PNCR electoral defeat and, as such, makes the argument that voting amounts to the legitimization of marginalization of Afro-Guyanese. I believe the conditions exist for the PNCR to win the next election. But no one can guarantee either of the two major parties electoral success. Even should the PNCR win, under the winner-take-all system there would be parties who therefore lose. The fundamental argument then in support of shared governance must be that no race or group of supporters must emerge as losers in the next election. All must emerge winners. And all could win if we put in place a government of national unity. The campaign, therefore, must be recast. ACDA and others must tell Guyanese that this campaign is to ensure that when Guyanese of all ethnic groups, political affiliations, religions, social status, etc, cast their votes at the next election for the party of their choice, that party, once it does well, will represent them in the highest decision-making forum of the land, i.e., the executive arm of government;

(iv) ACDA, in its call to boycott the election if certain conditions are not met, must clarify the question on whether those elections should be allowed to proceed or not if people indeed boycott the election.

The moral beauty of shared governance is that it seeks to address the rights and fears of all groups. The concept recognizes, for example, that a large percentage of Guyanese continue to see the PPP/C as their legitimate representatives. Therefore the PPP/C (as incompetent and corrupt as they are) has to be part of any new arrangement. The PPP/C, however, remains the only major organisation that continues to resist the idea. It now holds the minority position on this issue. It alone stands in the way.

In conclusion, Guyanese must make up their minds quickly on the way forward on this matter. In the coming months, a time is likely to be reached when we will have to demonstrate our seriousness of intent by the sheer presence of mass.