WHITHER POLITICAL COOPERATION? By Raphael Trotman

On September, 2006, His Excellency the President addressed the opening session of the ninth Parliament of Guyana and made what many considered a brilliant speech to the newly elected members.
Many promises were contained in the speech and the AFC took the position during the debate on a Motion on its adoption that time will be the judge of whether the President's vision and promises were worthy of being endorsed then or should be analysed over a given period of time.
What remained to be seen is whether that brilliant sophistry would be matched in substance.
The aspect of the President's speech that those of us in the AFC held on to was a contained section on Governance and in which was introduced the concept of “enhanced framework for cooperation.”
I have already signaled my intention to join forces with the political opposition and find innovative ways to work together to solve our problems.
This will be pursued within an enhanced framework for political cooperation encompassing the principles of increased meaningful contacts, the identification and implementation of an agreed agenda of national issues and greater scope for the participation of civil society in the decision-making process.”
September, 2007, is a good time within which to do a comparative analysis of what was said as against what was achieved.
In November, 2006, at the invitation of His Excellency, the President, the combined Opposition gathered at the Office of the President to consider and discuss ways in which there can be functional cooperation between the elected representatives of Guyana.
That was the last time that there was ever such a meeting as the process was abandoned as quickly as it was convened. Once again, the words of the President were honoured in the breach.
Each of the parties proposed agenda items.
Recall legislation, and a resolution of the Chief Justice/Chancellor dilemma were high up on the list for the PPP/C and the PNCR.
Other issues such as preparations for World Cup Cricket, Local Government reform, raising the profile of political representatives, and the sending of joint delegations abroad to attract investment made up the list of agreed items to be included in an agenda for discussion.
The AFC proposed that the Benschop incarceration be added to the list for resolution.
To date, three of the matters on the list have been addressed. Recall legislation, the High Court (Amendment) Bill, and Benschop. Much more however remains to be done.
The AFC gets the distinct impression that there is a deliberate and calculated move afoot at the Office of the President to jettison the process by entering into deals and arrangements with Congress Place thereby shutting out the other parliamentary parties AFC and GAP-ROAR from the discussions.
Rumour has it that the issue of an amendment to the Constitution to allow President Jagdeo to run for a third term is now a matter of discussion between the government and PNCR.
If that be the case then the AFC would prefer to be left out of the discussions indeed.
The President needs to be commended for achieving the settlement of some of those issues we agreed for the agenda, especially, the Benschop issue which we welcome, but as stated before, felt that the approach was all wrong.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that his failure to adhere to his commitment of establishing an enhanced framework for enhanced cooperation will spell trouble in the near future.
Already, the two primary concerns of the Guyanese people –the Value Added Tax and brazen acts of criminality are proving too much for the government alone to answer.
The enhanced framework (inclusive of civil society) would have been an ideal forum to discuss and craft a collective response to these issues.
One has to agree that the Minister of Home Affairs seems to be trying his best to get on top of the crime situation but his efforts and those of the police top brass are proving futile as we are unable to get further than matching weapons to crimes through ballistic testing.
Given the emergence of the “new” criminals emboldened by technology, television, and terror tactics there has to be a re-think of the entire national security doctrine and architecture.
This can only be achieved by a collective approach of those of us charged with the responsibility of being decision-makers.
In so far as VAT is concerned it is beyond obvious that it has failed to achieve the revenue neutrality that was expected and that more revenue is coming into the public coffers than was anticipated.
This may be good news for a cash-strapped government, but extremely bad news for the poor citizens. A united decision to adjust the VAT rate, or Income Tax rate, at this time would be in everyone's best interest.
No IMF or World Bank official would be able to challenge the authority of the nation's stakeholders to make the adjustment.
When one considers that over 80% of Guyana's best talent now resides and works in a developed country it means that the less than 20% of us left to manage the affairs of state cannot do so unless we work together, and reach into the Diaspora for support.
Necessity demands that there be an enhanced framework for political cooperation.