WHILE some see government’s call for dialogue between itself and the main opposition as cunning, Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo gave a reminder on Sunday that such calls date back as far as 1977 and its delay at this critical juncture in Guyana’s history may very well lead to the country’s downfall.
In his weekly newspaper column, the prime minister said that the on-going elections, marred by a bloated voter’s list, the use of dirty money, influence-peddling and an almost-paralysed elections commission, has caused Guyana its “deepest crisis ever.”
He said that the only way forward from the disagreements the two parties share, towards an outcome that benefits the Guyanese people, is dialogue. However, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C), through its leaders, has stated that it will not be open to talks with the government until after the elections.
Nagamootoo stated: “For the PPP to come to the table would require a tough decision by visionary leaders. They would use history as a guide and avoid impetuous responses. On August 12, 1977, then President Forbes Burnham rejected an offer made by Opposition Leader Cheddi Jagan for the PNC and the PPP to form a ‘National Front Government.’ Sadly, to this day, over 40 years later, Guyana is still bleeding from her wounds due to ethno-political division and the animosity between those two major parties.”
As reported in 1977, the People’s National Congress (PNC) had rejected the offer because the party did not believe it proposed the type of unity Guyana was badly in need of. “For the PNC, the real issue is national unity. This cannot be achieved by a mere power-sharing deal by political leaders. Jagan showed no interest in promoting national cohesion on a class basis,” the PNC had stated then as its position.
In his column, the prime minister pointed out that there were many other calls for dialogue and an agreement towards cooperation coming from the likes of former United States (U.S.) President Jimmy Carter in 2004, after a visit to Guyana.
At the time he noted that “incompatibility and animosity” characterised the relationship between the parties and added that “instead of achieving this crucial goal of inclusive and shared governance, the Guyanese government remains divided with a winner-takes-all concept that continues to polarise many aspects of the nation’s life.”
In more recent times, Nagamootoo noted the re-emergence of ‘The Guyana Renewal Project,’ through which Guyanese intellectuals, both local and abroad, have proposed the specifics for inclusive governance.
The project proposes a rotation of the presidency and the prime ministership; a Cabinet that includes representatives from the two major political parties and the joinder party; practical inclusive governance at the ministerial level; that the national budget be required to be passed by a two-thirds majority as opposed to the simple majority; the establishment of two high-level committees: an Executive Committee for Inclusive Governance and an Executive Committee for Policy and Economic and Development Planning and the re-engineering of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) to become more modernised and be less “vulnerable to interference.”
In addition to this, Nagamootoo also pointed to the recent remarks of former Ambassador, Geoffrey Dasilva who, in observation of Guyana’s political stalemate and inter-ethnic rivalry, put forward that “the solution is not an elective despotism (a winner-takes-all government), not a dictatorship. Either situation would definitely widen ethnic/class disparities with grave consequences.”
The prime minister said that it is clear that many Guyanese see through the surface of the country’s political challenges to the root of the matter and have long called for a remedy in the form of dialogue and inclusive governance.
Nagamootoo said that such action is needed in Guyana now more than ever as citizens on both sides are rallying for their will to be respected through the ballot and, an outcome that places one political party over the other, in a winner-takes-all fashion, will not prove beneficial to the country.
“For Guyanese citizens, not versed in nuances of political opportunism or skulduggery, the call for dialogue at this time is an SOS distress signal. They see that Guyana’s ship of state is in danger and they want all hand on deck to literally save their souls, as they battle the COVID pandemic and try to cut corners for survival,” he said.
“This time around the shoe is on the other foot and it is the government that holds out the olive branch to the opposition. If history were to repeat itself, yesterday’s farce would be today’s tragedy…it is in this fresh context that we should see the critical importance of dialogue. The alternative would be a vicious cycle of conflict, confrontation and non-cooperation.”
Source: https://issuu.com/guyanachroniclee-paper/docs/guyana_chronicle_epaper_07_27_2020