Elections results first: inclusive governance afterwards

Dear Editor,
Once again, “inclusive governance” has been edging onto centre stage of Guyana politics. There are forces that are pushing this aggressively, largely because their party has lost the 2020 National and Regional Elections. First, let’s begin with this caveat: these forces must recognise that Guyanese voted for a particular party to run the Government for the next five years, and not for inclusive governance.
Notwithstanding, the debate has gathered additional traction when noted academic Havelock Brewster joined the chorus for inclusive governance. And on May 18, 2020, President David Granger re-stated his call for inclusive governance.
The advocates have not yet been able to operationalise the concept of inclusive governance that would be appropriate to Guyana. Importing any model will not necessarily work, given Guyana’s history and it’s complex social structure. It’s easier to describe rather than define inclusive governance. One could say in general terms that it’s a system of governance where all major stakeholders, inclusive of political parties, are given an opportunity to participate in the running (decision-making) of the Government at all levels.
Under this system, it is envisaged that the party which wins the majority or plurality of votes at an election will assume the Presidency, and then allocate ministerial and other positions, after consultations with important stakeholders on programmes and policies, but in proportion to their popular or electoral strength. Civil society could be represented as technocrats at all levels of governance.
The 10 geographic/administrative Regions (ROs) should be given budgetary and tax authority. More central authority (such as police, health, public works, drainage and irrigation, education, lower court system, etc) should be devolved onto ROs. This could take the format of a federal type of system as proposed by Ravi Dev. And a  system of public hearings on important community issues will ensure that ordinary people have a say in the governmental process. In this way, many layers of society will be involved in governance.
What is essential for the integrity of this system is an effective opposition. Including a few members from other political parties or groups in the governmental structure does not mean that it is a coalition arrangement. Inclusive government is different from coalition government.
It is not known what model of inclusive governance the PNCR is advocating. In their 2015 manifesto, they spoke of ‘participatory democracy’ and the formation of a ‘government of national unity.’ In accordance with these principles, they stated: “APNU-AFC is committed to ending “winner-take-all” politics and building inclusive response and accountable governance.” However, their concept of inclusive governance seems to be restricted to “equal opportunity.”
Let’s assume that by inclusive government Mr Granger means at a minimum, executive (ministerial) power-sharing in the Cabinet and also at the lower levels in the Civil  Service, State Boards and Constitutional Commissions; then he had the golden opportunity to implement inclusive government when he assumed the Presidency in 2015 but instead, he dropped the proverbial ball.
This abject failure did not escape the attention of PPP/C’s executive Gail Texeira who criticised Mr Granger’s sudden revival of the inclusive governance idea as being opportunistic. She suggested that it’s because the PNCR/AFC party has lost the 2020 elections that Mr Granger has now turned to inclusive governance.
Gail has listed a number of policy decisions and actions (such as the closure of 4 sugar estates, the firing of 1962 Amerindian CSOs, defiance of NCM, unilateral appointment of Justice James Patterson as GECOM’s Chair, etc) by the PNCR-AFC Administration that were contrary to good governance and which led to the furthering of the race divide and the heightening of mistrust. On a May 13 GlobeSpan programme, former President Donald Ramotar asked: “how could the PPP/C share governance with cheaters and election riggers?” He was referring to Mingo’s voter tabulation fraud in Region Four.
For their part, the PNCR has argued that their trust in the PPP/C has been eroded because they (PPP/C) have marginalised Africans, enriched their supporters, killed 420 Black men and facilitated the drug trade; all of which have been rejected by the PPP/C. But these are some of the dominant PNCR narratives.
The PPP/C has indicated on several occasions that they are not averse to some aspects of inclusive governance; in their 2020 manifesto that’s one of their promises to the people. But they have not provided a model either. It’s perplexing that we are discussing inclusive governance when we have not yet developed an appropriate model or framework.
The challenge ahead is to strengthen factors compatible with the rebuilding of trust among the various groups. Trust is not unachievable but it will involve extensive national discussions followed by purposeful action in such matters as national reconciliation. Building trust includes taking such measures as giving the Integrity Commission and the Ethnic Relations Commission enforcement authority, and establishing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with enforcement authority. And to quote Ravi Dev, we should prepare ethnic impact statements for major projects which will continually guide public policy.
We should allow churches to play the lead role in social cohesion. These and other measures could improve trust pending the time when the agenda for the inclusive government model will be cast into the public domain for debate, and if accepted by all stakeholders for subsequent incorporation in the Constitution. We still have a good way to go on this journey.

Sincerely,
Dr Tara Singh