Govt should not be distracted by clamour for shared governance, power-sharing

Dear Editor,
The incessant clamour for shared governance and/or power-sharing by Opposition forces seeking input and control over governmental functions is a disservice to Guyanese. This is especially so since such governing structures have proven to be ineffective, and have had adverse effects on the country’s development and progress.
Most Guyanese old enough today can probably recall the failed coalition government established by Burnham’s People’s National Congress (PNC) and D’Aguiar’s United Force (UF) political parties in 1964. Aware of the PNC’s inability to garner majority electoral support, Burnham joined forces with D’Aguiar to dislodge Jagan’s Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) from political power. Burnham viewed a coalition government with D’Aguiar as advantageous to his political dominance over the country, even though he and D’Aguiar had extremely little political and governing philosophies in common.
As a 2002 (released date) intelligence report declared, the PNC+UF coalition government, from its inception, worked like an “ungreased machine”, and not long thereafter, tension escalated between Burnham and D’Aguiar. As the report continued to state, D’Aguiar complained about Burnham’s “dictatorial” and “squandermania” tendencies, in addition to the UF not being consulted on key governing issues.
In September 1967, dissatisfied with the governing relations, D’Aguiar resigned – three years after the formation of the coalition government. He later moved to reside in Barbados.
Burnham, on the other hand, explored what many considered devious ways to increase his support and prolong his power and domination over the country. These include registering Guyanese residents abroad – the majority of whom at the time were Afro-Guyanese – as well as forming an alliance with Eric Gary of Grenada to increase his Afro-base support, in addition to rigging the election. It is essential to note that none of these initiatives included an alliance with the PPP.
In December 1968, Burnham rigged the national elections to retain power, and five years later – December 1974 – declared the PNC paramount.
Besides the failed PNC+UF coalition government, today’s Guyanese are familiar with another futile power-sharing government, that of APNU+AFC.
Promoted in their political campaign rhetoric as a National Front Government (NFG), not only did the governing structural relations and arrangements of the APNU+AFC coalition prove disquieting, the leadership roles and struggles among members of the two political entities became blurred by internal rivalries. Overall, the lack of clarity in terms and conditions of power sharing, and the articulation of questionable unified policy decisions, contributed to uneasiness among various sectors of the population.
The reader should not be swayed by the smoldering aftermath of nebulous and falsified retrospective claims that APNU+AFC collective policy decisions benefitted most Guyanese, especially the working class and poor. Presented with grandiose claims of success, those who lived under the APNU+AFC regime should ask themselves (i) What progressive policies did the APNU+AFC government promulgate, or noteworthy actions taken to develop the country, improve lives, and win the confidence of Guyanese? (ii) In calling for shared governance/power sharing, (a) Is APNU-AFC seeking easy access to governmental power without the electoral consent of the masses? (b) Why did APNU+AFC refuse to leave office and transfer power after losing the election in 2020? (c) Does such effort to usurp power qualify them to be a partner in shared governance/power sharing?
It is essential to note that Opposition leaders’ clamour for shared governance/power-sharing would catapult the leaders into the echelons of political prominence, but would be unlikely to bring, or guarantee, benefits to the disenfranchised, the alienated, the working poor, and the population at large, as evidenced by the failed PNC+UF, and then APNU+AFC shared governance structures and relations.
Consequently, instead of shared governance/power sharing, the PPP/C should focus emphasis on expanding its current system of Participatory Democracy at all levels: regional, district, village, communities, and even churches, mandirs and mosques, with intent to solicit input and feedback that would result in policy decisions that benefit all Guyanese.
Participatory Democracy has proven to be critical in building trust, generating firsthand learning, fostering working relationships between Government and the people, and providing opportunities for primary data collection that inform policy decisions.
President Ali’s outreach, consultation, and decision making have already exemplified and validated the importance and value of governance through a system of participatory democracy.
Hence, the PPP/C leadership should not become distracted from its commitment to developing the country and improving the lives of all Guyanese through adherence to the protocols and policies of participatory democracy.
Undoubtedly, such a system of governance would take time to fully materialise and yield fruitful results. Could it be that because the successes of such a governance system are clearly evidenced the Opposition forces clamour for power sharing? Think about it.

Regards,
Narayan Persaud