Running Out

Posted May 21st. 2004 - by Eusi Kwayana.

In most countries in the world, a general cross-section of citizens of the country, through representatives, has a chance of influencing what the government decides and does. In the USA the people are trying to bring this about, but those excluded do not have an easy time getting in. The USA is a grand contradiction. Nowhere is there so much proclamation of democracy and nowhere are the rich so dedicated to forcing the people fight the same battles again and again.

In Guyana the government is unaware of own plight. It calculates on a number of Fronts. Its leading intelligence, however, does not feel. It is not the only government leadership with this lack of feeling. In Guyana it is dangerous not to feel. Arguing that the PNC does not use the authority bestowed on it by the people does not suggest that the rulers are ready to grant the opposition their full rights.

The current matter of matter of the appointment of the Commission on the Death Squad i The President in exercising his unquestioned powers left after the Constitutional revision should bear in mind the spirit of the Constitution from 1966. The Leader of the Opposition is a member of the Executive under the Constitution. consultation over the members cause some one to be kidnapped? There are the two Majors, still shouting across the fence at each other because the President agreed to a demand and appointed a Commission over their head. If we recall that he Is not prepared to "lynch" his minister. On the face of it the Commission is not a government Commission. This means that and "exit strategy" has been planned

It is the Opposition that has not announced an entry strategy.. The President Jagdeo acted outside the spirit of the constitution, Those demanding an enquiry are still free top take part, request the presence of counsel,under protest.consider taking part 'iunder protest' make sure that the charges against the minister are at least offically documrented sand watch the process at close raqnge,aswellas invite a HumanTRights obseerver.

Returning to our theme, when we put side by side the PPP's official declaration to the Select Committee of the National Assembly for Constitutional Reform and the Office of the President's position as declared by the Head of the Presidential Secretariat, what have we got? When the President took the advice of the PNC/R and appoint the Leader of the Opposition, did he not realise that he was appointiing a nember of the executive Declaration: "The PPP adheres to the majoritarian principle.", that is, rule by the majority. We can even say," So far, so good." To the first declaration, the Office of the President was good enough to add publicly , years afterwards, this key :"We act on the principle of democratic centralism."

These declarations were not made after the East Coast outbreak, but well before it, and well before the 2001 general elections .What do they mean ? Days before the 2001 election the government used "democratic centralism" in its deal over the Law Books contract with a US firm of friends.

Majority rule without democratic centralism gives a chance to the opposition, public opinion and the law itself to influence government. So we have an interaction and even rivalry and competition between the majority party and the official and non-official opposition, the press and \the vocal interests. I am not siuggesting that majority rule as we know it, can work in Guyana.

With majority rule and democratic centralism, we have an internal interaction between the cabinet and the party. The rest of the country, regardless of how it voted, becomes a scattering of second class citizens. Of course, some are more second class than others.

Democratic centralism in our conditions is especially frightening because as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be it means paramountcy of the party over the state. And the Party here means the "higher organs." If there is maximum leader, or a general secretary, it can mean the maximum leader in many cases."

These are some of the tensions, sometimes open, sometimes hidden, that add fuel to the political differences which are present in all or most countries. In Guyana, because of the almost total racial support of the major parties, modified only by their Amerindian voters, in each case, our political differences present themselves as racial differences. The presentation is potent, takes on a life of its own.

Buxton, for the PPP/C, was a marginal exception to this rule in 2001.There is no point ignoring this fact. The PNC /R polled over 90 percent of the Buxton-Friendship vote in 2001. But the PPP/C polled about 250 votes there. I misled the WPA when I told it months before the election, "We have nothing to get in Buxton-Friendship." In fact we polled a total 68 (sixty-eight) votes. The Justice For All Party also did better than the WPA there. The vote did not demolish..I understood it as the degree to which people .. The voters, knowing the rulers, were responding to tough talk and to power, the power of government, the power of media, the power of promised victory., as in the PNC's confident cry, "Are you ready?"

All the party positions above, as statements, maybe considered harmless. However, leaders and followers often begin to act out these declarations, mobilise around them and raise tension.

I happen to belong to a party which, though small, is not without vision. In 1989 a WPA motion for a National Dialogue of all social forces passed the National; Assembly unanimously . Implementation by the president began and then the rulers went back on their word, altered the terms of the proposed dialogue and caused it to fall apart. Instead of a homegrown solution resulting form deep and frank, plain talking conversation, there was a change of scene. Enter President Carter and a cast. The conversation was overtaken by negotiation.

WPA's vision for a national conversation had been defeated by those who later blamed the world for President Carter's entry.

The decisions resulting were not unfair to any side, and fair to all sides, so far as the amendments to electoral laws were concerned. On election day some people took a different view. Of course, they had been entirely left out of any conversation.

Today everyone is impatient and waiting for change from above. To our shame the country is not wiser than I was in1961 when I proposed that "the leaders get together and talk and plan".At the time I was in leadership politics and not empowerment politics, which we developed inside ASCRIA and which came later, and was reinforced by Walter Rodney wrapped in the familiar chant, "People's Power,. No Dictator."

Rodney's conversations were with interested organisations, civic and professional groups, employees, workers and farmers,Youth and the general public .We had conferences at NAACIE in his lifetime. When the question of the PNC came up I said, with no disagreement, in the circumstances of 1977, "If the PNC should concede fair and free elections it should be seen as and the kind of party." These are problems of national sanity and reconstruction. There are Conflict Resolution .

Conferences being convened, so far as I know by Dr, Cedric Grant. and the University of Guyana. Dr. Judaman Seeecomar has written a book on Conflict Resolution in Guyana. In it he argues , accepting Burton, that our kind of conflicts are about NEEDS. He seems to propose that ev en when the argument is about race, the hidden cause may be NEEDS. CY Thomas tried this appriach in1997,but there were no takers. Enquiries into the Phantom Affair and into the Taliban Affair must reveal what we have gone through, and why.citizens have been menaced, "and matters connected therewith." And as soon as possible after, nothing should prevent a series of wide ranging conversations, with rivals and others side by side discussing the immediate past and the future.