Power to the people trumps power sharing amongst politicians

Dear Editor,

The narrative of “power sharing” or ” shared Governance” as alluded to by Khemraj Ramjattan on Kaieteur Radio a few days ago, is a hallowed concept; unworkable and lacking in insight. None of the proponents of “Power sharing” has given any suggestions of how this could work for the benefit of the people. Ramjattan in his usual fashion, called for “shared Governance” to avoid “post-elections violence and the propensity for ethnic conflicts.”
You can understand how incredulous this statement is, coming from someone entrusted to ensure the safety of the nation.

Humans are selfish creatures. We have seen examples of this since and before the Advent of the APNU/AFC Coalition.
Contrary to their 2015 Manifesto, the Coalition’s top brass took a 50 percent increase in salaries for themselves while optimising the tax base to the extent of “VATting” water, electricity and private education, contrary to the expectation of the general populace.

Has anyone of the proponents of power sharing ever thought of the likelihood of a group of politicians from the PPP and APNU joining forces in the absence of opposition and forming a dictatorship in the name of power sharing? This could result in the plundering of the nation’s wealth by politicians, through corruption on a more colossal scale than has been seen since Independence.

If Democracy is “power to the people”, I wonder how do we conceive of “power sharing” at the other end of the spectrum – in governance? Logically! This end of the spectrum (Government) should be envisaged as “service to the people”.

Our constitution allows so much sweet power in Government that the APNU/AFC Coalition, with the knowledge that they have lost the March 2 Elections, are festering thoughts of “power sharing”- thoughts they never entertained while they were in power. This sweet power lurking in governance is evidence that the drafters of our constitution failed the people when they wrote, “Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives.”

The “List system”, which allows a party to recall or get rid of an MP, is a clear indication that MP’s are representatives of the party and not the people. In “sovereignty belongs to the people”, the right to recall an MP should reside with the people through the Democratic process. Power is not something you can give and still have. In the list system, we give our sovereignty (power) to the parties at the elections and remain powerless until the next elections where we do it all over again – a vicious cycle.

With the amount of extant power up for grabs, it is no surprise that the losing Coalition is clamouring for “power sharing”.

As citizens, we must understand that power sharing at the top will never improve the quality or quantity of governance, we should rather seek to have our power restored to us so we can demand good governance.
The “list system” needs to be replaced by the constituency system to restore power to the people. Over the last two election cycles, the list system saw two of the most unexceptional individuals (Ramotar and Granger) acceding to the presidency. This country will never progress with such presidents at the helm.

Paramountcy of the parties needs to be broken by resorting to the constituency system. Both politically affiliated and non-affiliated people should be allowed to run for MP, and the presidency and the state should finance the campaigns of the top four contestants in each category (MP or Presidency) on the basis of merit, decided on by the people.
CR in this direction will restore power to the people and break the shackles of racism that continue to haunt us. This will place Government in its rightful perspective – service to the people.

Rudolph Singh