Unlike inclusive governance, which the constitution requires the party running the executive and or legislative branch of government to consider the input of other parties and civil society stakeholders in national decision-making, power sharing or its aliases, shared governance and unity government, seems to imply doling out of cabinet and other top posts in government, including diplomatic postings, public sector appointments and seats on public commissions.
This much-hyped power sharing concept is not enshrined in the constitution, unfortunately, and is therefore left up to the party in government and other players to devise a straightforward, feasible plan, with rules and referees, if the concept is going to work as expected by all participants. And this is where the concept often hits a snag as no one has, as yet, contrived a formula that is acceptable to all.
In 1985, during the PNC-PPP unity government talks, the sticking point reportedly turned out to be the PPP's demand that it be given the senior partner role since it commanded greater numerical support among Indians than the PNC had among Blacks. But what did being a senior partner entail? Did it mean the PPP would have taken the key posts and divvied up the lesser important ones among the junior partners? And if there was a parliamentary impasse, who would have refereed the case and brought about a resolution acceptable to all?
To me, migration is a serious matter, but we have far more pressing issues that require resolutions, and, if resolved, may even address the migration issue, which is basically a last resort for many when opportunities for a better life in Guyana are dried up.
So, how do we go about devising a strategy aimed at producing a power sharing arrangement to address all major issues, including migration? Does it take its cue from elections results that determine which parties received what percentage of votes to determine which gets what percentage of seats and other government positions? How do the mechanics of the system work? And will there be need for a constitutional reform or amendment to facilitate such a concept to make it permanent?
