Political Devolution : Kaieteur News

There has been an interesting discussion between PM Sam Hinds and former Minister of Education Dr Henry Jeffrey about possible ways of moving out of our Sisyphean political paradigm.
However while debating ?shared government? versus ?shared governance?, both interlocutors, like other politicians of the modern era, studiously ignored the possibility that our unitary state-structure might be part of the problem.
It would appear that Sir Arthur Lewis? 1964 commendation of ?coalition and federalism? for the institutionalisation of democracy in plural societies, has been forgotten.
I offer the following from my ?For a New Political Culture?, mentioned last week, to illustrate my point: ?Democracy? and ?plural societies? are not mutually exclusive but on the other hand one must recognise the obstacles the latter condition poses to the former ideal.
Over the last twenty-five years, (forty-five if we accept Dr Jeffrey?s thesis that the PPP practiced the same governance model albeit using different mechanisms) Guyana has experienced one ?solution? to the problem of a plural society: an authoritarian de-facto one party state that attempted to impose unity by militarising the society under a purported ?non-ethnic? ideology.
It was a complete failure: new approaches are necessary.
The proposals attempt to directly address conflicts in a plural society and this is an essential aspect of the process of integration.
The incentives that groups would be given to negotiate and bargain, over time should provide the basis for these groups to recognise their mutual interdependence and unity.
Approaches towards ameliorating the intensity of ethnic politics and moving it away from a zero sum position fall under two broad approaches: structural and distributive.
The two strategies are not mutually exclusive and in fact can be tailored to complement each other.
They incorporate five mechanisms to reduce conflict and encourage cooperation.
? Dispersal of power from away from the centre, towards the periphery where each ethnic group may have a share.
? Creating incentives for intra-ethnic rather than inter-ethnic rivalries.
? Creating incentives for inter-ethnic cooperation.
? Initiating policies, which emphasize interests other than ethnic ones.
? Reducing the gap between the various groups in contested areas.
One important caveat is that innovations should not be frozen in perpetuity; there must be mechanisms for incorporating changes as the society inevitably progresses and evolves and as the consequences of the initiatives are greater appreciated.
In this excerpt we focus on Political Devolution and suggest that Guyana should be reconstituted as a Federal Republic. In a society where the major ethnic groups each constitute majorities in different areas of the country, as in Guyana, political devolution offers the largest number of initiatives towards addressing ethnic insecurity.
There are several variants of devolution, ranging from strong Local Government to Federalism. The latter arrangement offers the most benefits to Guyana.
1. Abolishing winner-take-all politics.
In a federal structure, the central government would be concerned with national issues such as defence and foreign policy.
There would be substantial autonomy to the separate states, which will guarantee that the inhabitants of each state have real power over their lives.
Police functions, local development, local taxation and spending are only a few of the functions of the State Governments.
African Guyanese, for instance, would possess real power in Demerara, while the same would be true for Indian Guyanese in Berbice and Amerindian Guyanese in the interior states.
2. Removing the struggle for power at the centre.
When the centre does not possess all the power, the struggle to control it is not as intense.
The competition will be distributed among the states as groups within attempt to control. National politics will not be a zero sum game; ?losers? will still be guaranteed power at the state level.
3. Creating intra-ethnic rivalry
Fragmentation of the electorate leads to a lesser possibility of the majority dominating. Guyanese Indian politicians, dominant in Berbice or the Essequibo Coast, are more likely to see themselves as rivals for power at the centre.
Additionally, within a state, since one ethnic group will have an overwhelming majority, intra-ethnic rivalry will develop since no threat will be perceived to be coming from ?out groups? and there will be no place for ?not splitting the vote?.
4. Encouraging coalitions at the centre
In a situation where different interests will be represented at the centre, there will be incentives for cooperation between various states to ensure the implementation of common programs.
5. Creating fluidity and multi-polar balance rather than the previous bipolar confrontation.
As the various states manoeuvre for the maximum benefits for their citizens, the alliances at the centre will shift, depending on the issue. This should move the conflict from the more volatile bipolar mode.
6. Furthering the political philosophy of Government being responsive to the people and never overwhelming them.
The closer Government is to the people the more responsive it ought to be.
The state government should be the most sensitive to the idiosyncrasies of its citizens and region.
Local courts for instance would be most sympathetic to autochthonous needs.

Source: http://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2013/04/28/political-devolution/

Breezy Point Seaside Heights nj transit PSEG hocus pocus hocus pocus mta schedule