If there was one overriding characteristic of David Granger’s regime, it was his refusal to compromise with any of the political forces both inside and outside his coalition. In this regard, he was acting in accordance with the posture of the PNC established by its founder Forbes Burnham. In the negotiations with the AFC to coalesce for the 2015 elections, there were great expectations, aroused with the signing of the Cummingsburg Accord, that the stance might have changed. But these hopes were soon dashed after the elections. Even the ideologically sympatico, born-again WPA, that coalesced earlier with the PNC to become APNU, constantly complained about the lack of consultation in crafting governmental policies.
This hardline refusal to compromise was best illustrated by Granger’s actions in choosing a new GECOM Chair following the retirement of Steve Surujbally. First, he insisted on a Judge qualified for the slot, even though Art 161 (2) had been specifically altered to add to that requirement: “or any other fit and proper person.” He even dubbed the Chief Justice’s ruling as her “perception”, and insisted he was entitled to his. Finally, he refused to select a nominee from three lists of six nominees submitted by the Opposition Leader in accordance with the above Act. This was designed to encourage a compromise between him and the Opposition Leader on the selection of this key figure. Ultimately, the CCJ ruled that Granger’s choice was unconstitutional, but even in choosing the incumbent, he tried to play games.
His handling of the PPP’s successful NCM in the National Assembly further reinforced, if at all that was needed, Granger’s inflexible position. There were several opportunities when he could have flexed with the Opposition Leader on enforcing the constitutionally sanctioned elections date without recourse to the Courts. But not surprisingly, that was a road not taken. And our country reverted to the old ethnically divided politics.
A decade before, as the polarisation of politics was becoming intensified both quantitively and qualitatively in the US, political scientists Amy Gutman and Dennis Thompson had offered some very salutary advice to political elites in their book, “The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It”. This is today relevant to Granger’s PNC successors in rejecting compromise across the divide, unlike the PPP.
“If politics is the art of the possible, then compromise is the artistry of democracy. Unless one partisan ideology holds sway over all branches of Government, compromise is necessary to govern for the benefit of all citizens. A rejection of compromise biases politics in favour of the status quo, even when the rejection risks crisis.
“Compromise is difficult, but governing a democracy without compromise is impossible. Why is compromise so hard in a democracy, when it is undoubtedly necessary? Much of the resistance to compromise lies in another necessary part of the democratic process: campaigning for political office. Though valuable in its place, campaigning is increasingly intruding into governing, where it is less helpful. The means of winning an office are subverting the ends of governing once in office. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that in (Guyana) “every day is election day in the permanent campaign.
“Resistance to democratic compromise can be kept in check by a contrary cluster of attitudes and arguments — a compromising mindset — which favours adapting one’s principles and respecting one’s opponents. It is the mindset more appropriate for governing, because it enables politicians more readily to recognise opportunities for desirable compromise. When enough politicians adopt it enough of the time, the spirit of compromise prevails.
“In general, compromise is an agreement in which all sides sacrifice something in order to improve on the status quo from their perspective, and in which the sacrifices are at least partly determined by the other sides’ will. The sacrifice involves not merely getting less than you want, but also, thanks to your opponents, getting less than you think you deserve. The sacrifice typically involves trimming your principles. We call these defining characteristics of compromise mutual sacrifice and wilful opposition.”
