General Secretary of the PPP, Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee, declared at his press conference last week that the PPP has no problem with shared governance and the ‘winner does not take all’ principle. After all, he said, the PPP established its Civic component in pursuit of the realization of ‘winner does not take all.’ In the General Secretary’s analysis, the obstacle to the achievement of shared governance is the absence of trust between the PNCR and the PPP.

There is no distinction between the two. They are one and the same thing.

Just as shared governance means sharing between winner and loser, so ‘winner does not take all’ means sharing between winner and loser. But the PPP as well as the Civic are winners all the way.  They are on the same list of candidates. The ‘winner does not take all’ system cannot therefore be accomplished by the PPP having the Civic as partners.

After the 2001 general elections the PPP came under intense pressure to share political office with the then PNC. It had won three successive elections resulting in severe post-election turmoil. Many civic-minded individuals and organisations, as well as the diplomatic community, were raising the issue of shared governance as a possible way out of the political instability.  This resulted in the declaration, ‘Building Trust and Confidence’ announced by President Jagdeo at State House on February 11, 2003. The Declaration stated:

“The PPP/C proposes the implementation of all the constitutional reforms as an immediate measure to building trust and to further enhance inclusive governance. In this regard, the parties will be required to collaborate on: the appointment of the…Commissions…The PPP/C will expand on these efforts by encouraging broader co-operation by all forces in the society involved in public affairs but particularly the political parties…In an environment created by deepening trust and confidence, further arrangements for inclusive governance can result after consultation with our constituents and the electorate.”

The Government therefore set itself the task of completing the reforms and then moving forward to more inclusive forms of governance. In the context of the times, this was understood to mean shared governance. The reforms, except the Human Rights Commission, mentioned in the above passage were all established and functioning by 2006, but neither the Government nor the PPP/C took any steps to implement its promise of ‘further arrangements for inclusive governance.’ The PPP/C and Government had everything in its power, and no obstacle in its path, but it did nothing.

My colleague in these pages, Dr. Henry Jeffrey, has already written persuasively on the issue of trust. He has argued quite rightly that political parties in a society like ours, with its ethnic challenges, can never build trust where one is in power and the other is not. Attempting to first build trust and then to share governance is putting the cart before the horse. Trust can only be built in a situation where the governance is shared and cooperation is thereby engendered. In fact, it is the sharing of governance and working together, not as political adversaries in adversarial political conditions, but as political colleagues in a collaborative environment, that builds trust, not the other way around. The PPP knows this and the General Secretary’s refrain about lack of trust being an obstacle to shared governance has become a familiar excuse.

The General Secretary referred to the intention of the PPP to build a ‘broad left front,’ which he had announced at the end of last year. He also referred to the ‘national democratic’ policies, which the PPP is pursuing. These are concepts integrally connected to and rooted in the theories of revolutionary democracy and the policies of a revolutionary democratic state and a national democratic state, which prevailed and were recognized during the era of the Soviet Union. The ‘broad left front’ is supposed to be based on the unity of the working class, a firm alliance of the working class with other ‘democratic’ forces including farmers, trade unions, professionals, patriotic business and civil society.

This ‘broad left front,’ as part of the administrative system, would assist in designing policies and mobilizing the country and the people around them thus ensuring full democratic participation. These policies would be guard against foreign domination and exploitation.

The PPP’s philosophical outlook and rules are based on the above principles. But they contradict running a weak, minority, Government in a country where there is a divided working class. The PPP is not giving a reason, particularly now, why ideological, working class, unity in a ‘broad left front’ is not being sought with the PNCR, which is the representative of the other section of the working class and whose membership will establish the main foundation for such a front, namely, working class unity.

If the answer is that the Opposition does not cooperate and there is no trust, then the PPP must answer these questions: Did the pro-Catholic administration of Northern Ireland insist that cooperation and trust must first be established with the Provisional IRA and bringing the killing to an end before signing the Good Friday Agreement of April 10, 1998? Closer to home, did the political parties which are bitter opponents of President Bouterse and his party insist on cooperation or creating trust before joining the governing coalition?

Join the Conversation


  1. Trust by working class for the political class is only a dream.
    It will come true when ‘transparancy’
    become the rule of thumb in politics.
    Openness transparency is what the public wants….not promises promises
    Politicians speak with forked tounge
    as per chiefs of the apaches as they were being eliminated….honesty and open-minded politics the way forward.
    My spin

    1. the exodus in Guyana started since the
      late 20th century,and became more pronounced in the 21st century- then,how many elections we have had in Guyana in the late 20 century n early 21st century? who won despite of exodus? what is the real status of the’ KUS KUS PARTY ‘?understood the mentality of the young n vibrant
      generation,but try to understand that
      ppp ” die hearted voters” will turn out
      to the polls ,plus the absentees from last election. on the other hand the smart Africans will also vote for ppp,since they already and fully aware
      of pnc tricks n politricks- keep firm with
      the environmental politics n then make
      comments- of course ppp will have to do lot in good campaigning to get rid of
      the ” kus kus” minority

  2. Sir Ralph Ramkarran,you are fully aware that there
    was never a joint regime in Guyana,the mere application of” the winner does not take all” definitely,would never be successful,especially with the TRENDS AND TRAITS of the opposition forces in Guyana-.Remember DR JAGAN made it expilicitly clear,that he would not like to dominate, neither would he liked to be dominated.

    The present crisis with the PPP,is primarily due to
    their main weakness,ie they neglected their ex activist,and scrutineers,and also appointing ministers and executives without thinking to top ranking post in their regime
    .Previously, I commented to you that UNCLE SAM HINDS does not convince me that he is on the CIVIC component after five consecutivie time as PM,AND THE REST OF THE CIVIC is hanging on…..

    However, historical facts are quite revealing,and cannot be erased from the old n golden days of DR J,AND YR FATHER BOYSIE,THAT THE PPP IS THE MOST FORMIDABLE AND STABLE PARTY.
    wonder if any one can remember in 1997 elections
    campaign, when the ATTORNEY AT LAW BERNARD DE SANTOS REFFERED to the other parties as THE ‘ KUS -KUS” PARTY. THUS FAR CAN GECOM GIVE AN INDEPENDENT COUNT AN ESTIMATE of the segregated parties, if possible.



  3. Comrade
    I share your sentiments but not your
    A day week month is a long time in politricks !
    If the youths of Guyana do not join the exodus ‘brain drain’ and decide to be registered and vote the swing vote will
    be the deciding factor.
    Wasn’t Obama voted in by the Hispanics
    ‘People of colour’ in US of A !
    Speculation on results in a free and fair
    election is mere ‘SPECULATION’ !
    Lets not panic …que sera sera !
    My spin
    Kamtan enjoying the saber rattling from a distance.

  4. Not unlike international political trends
    Guyana may be ripe for ‘coalition’ government. Merger of left or right
    with center…..personally I dislike
    coalitions….too many decisions behind closed doors….too many compromises
    over serious issues….openness transparency in politics is way forward.

    The sooner the elections are done and dusted the better the chances of moving forward.

    My spill

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.