Manifestos

We are into the season of political manifestos it seems. At least, the PPP/C’s launch of the outline of its manifesto last week might appear to suggest such. Unsurprisingly, it did not produce anything unexpected, and in any case, it had already pronounced earlier on a few of the items, such as the reopening of sugar estates closed by the current government. In addition, there was the inclusion of its plans to resuscitate the Amaila Falls Hydro project, which not all experts might consider a wise move.

Apart from that, a fair portion of the remainder could perhaps find a home in the APNU manifesto as well, whenever that makes its appearance, in so far as it promised more jobs, a reduced cost of living, the “training [of] our human capacity” and changing the education system to meet the economic requirements of the nation. There was too the inevitable discussion of issues surrounding the coming oil revenue, which one can expect that the coalition will also have much to write about when its turn comes, although there may be some differences in approach such as in relation to cash transfers and the renegotiation of contracts.

PPP/C Presidential Candidate Irfaan Ali, speaking at the launch, asked the electorate to “at least give us a chance, an opportunity to be heard.” However, structurally speaking, there was nothing revolutionary in the document presented, even if some of the individual items will be new to voters. And in terms of expectations, the PPP/C was in office for a period of almost 23 years not so long ago, and if the public therefore could not quite have closed its eyes and recited what might be in the manifesto, it would still have had a fairly good idea of what that party’s government represented.

The same, it might be said, is true of the present government, which judging from its statements and actions is very unlikely to produce anything structurally revolutionary in its manifesto either. Furthermore, its performance will have been judged by the electors already.

At the bottom of it all, of course, our major parties have never addressed their minds to the morphology of our political arrangements and the aberrant governance which follows as a consequence. When abuse of the opponent is not the order of the day, what is promised in political campaigns is undertakings on individual issues, such as jobs. The constituency of an opposing party is very unlikely to be persuaded by such promises. What matters is not substance, but to which ethno-political group one belongs (or at least adheres). Dr Ali’s plea, therefore, for those who do not traditionally support his party to give it a chance, is almost certainly a wasted one. Apart from anything else, trust is in short supply in Guyanese politics.

For all of that, a revolutionary ‘manifesto’ was made public last week, although it did not emanate from the traditional political precincts. It came from the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and was sketched out in an address by that organisation’s President, Mr Nicholas DeygooBoyer at the organisation’s awards ceremony on Thursday. Its full details are not yet in the public domain, but in our report yesterday, this newspaper highlighted a few of its proposals.

Two of the suggestions related firstly to the economy, and secondly to the Constitution. Where the first of these is concerned, the chamber recommended a single, all-encompassing development plan, rather than one which is thrown out at successive elections. (The PPP/C manifesto with its return to Amaila Falls and the reopening of shuttered sugar estates is illustrative of that point.) Mr Deygoo-Boyer then listed a ten-point plan intended to address the major structural issues in the economy.

It might be remarked that we had one of these development plans in earlier days on which Mr Bharrat Jagdeo himself worked, i.e. the National Development Strategy. Its compilation involved a huge amount of time, effort and skill from representatives of all the political sectors, in addition to many others. Yet, in the end, it was for the most part allowed to languish. While what the Georgetown Chamber is asking for is only rational, the lesson is that unless our politicians from all sides are prepared not just to work together on a national plan, but implement it no matter who is in office, then this proposal is a pipe-dream. There would need to be some kind of political framework or pact in place for it to become a reality, although whether the organisation has worked out the details of a possible model yet is not altogether clear.

Exactly how comprehensive, coherent, integrated and potentially implementable the chamber’s ideas are will not be known until the full document has been studied. It may be that the plans have not been fully argued out, and that their impact will therefore be limited. What can be said from the synopsis, however, is that there were one or two revolutionary proposals affecting the constitutional structure of the state which none of the smaller parties so wedded to constitutional reform has yet taken on board. The first of these was the suggestion that the executive head of government should be the prime minister, who would sit in Parliament, and that the president should be limited to a constitutional function such as in Trinidad and Tobago.

While this is revolutionary in our current context, it is in fact not new to us. It is what obtained under the original 1966 Constitution which was replaced by that in 1980 which has caused such problems. The suspicion has always been that the senior members of those parties wedded to reform of the Constitution always aspired to the presidency themselves, which is why they have never wanted to return to a prime ministerial system. There would seem to be no other reason for them wasting so much effort trying to limit the powers of the president, rather than follow the easier avenue. Whether any of them will now take on board what the chamber has put forward in this regard, remains to be seen.

Certainly in a divided country like ours there are good reasons for not investing too much power in one man, and for making one’s head of government answerable to Parliament. The lure of power is dangerous in our context, and a more low-key figure at the head of administration has much to recommend it.

Mr Deygoo-Boyer did limn out a few other constitutional propositions, such as there should be term limits for constitutional office-holders – nothing particularly new there – and infinitely more radical, two parliamentary houses. Exactly what form these would take was not spelt out, neither what would justify a change from our unicameral system. That too, it must be said, would be revolutionary were it to be adopted, although one suspects there would not be much appetite for it, more particularly if no cogent case in its favour could be made out. More problematical in a different sense was changing the structure of ministries so that permanent secretaries were in charge of operations, and ministers in charge of policy and direction. That would imply a return to the older colonial concept of a professional civil service, which has proved an insuperable challenge in our politicised times, and would require more than just a change to the framework of our state.

In addition, reform of GECOM has been proposed by many, and not just the chamber. What stands in its way is the paranoia of the politicians.

What is good about all of this is that other major players have entered the ‘manifesto’ debate, so we will not be subject to the offerings – some might say, platitudes – from the political parties alone. There needs to be a wider discussion in the society about the direction in which we should be going, which perhaps might force the political players to direct their attention to alternative views, rather than just the group-think to which they are accustomed. The discussion will be taken more seriously if it comes from civil society organisations, rather than just individuals. For that reason, the Georgetown Chamber has done everyone a favour.