Reza, talks will not bring anything meaningful so close to an election.

Talks about a free and fair election and the appointment of an impartial Election Commission Chairman is what is important at this stage.

We need to be realistic. 

Talk is cheap.

I believe Jimmy Carter talks between the ruling party (APNU) and the opposition (PPP) is to agree on a shared Government.

You are dead wrong. A shared government is not on the agenda.

Constitutional Reform is more plausible. 

Prince posted:

I believe Jimmy Carter talks between the ruling party (APNU) and the opposition (PPP) is to agree on a shared Government.

Any proof or is this your personal opinion? A shared government should alleviate some of Guyana's race problems unless the PNC wants to continue to be the pit bull in the corner.

It would be nice to see an amendment that allows for coalitions AFTER elections. That would add fire to PPP and PNC's tail.

skeldon_man posted:

Prince posted:

I believe Jimmy Carter talks between the ruling party (APNU) and the opposition (PPP) is to agree on a shared Government.

Any proof or is this your personal opinion? A shared government should alleviate some of Guyana's race problems unless the PNC wants to continue to be the pit bull in the corner.

Granger entrusted Nagamootoo to speak to the PPP in late 2015, but Jagdeo didn't want to listen to him. I believe Jimmy Carter is making it his duty to engage the PPP with this idea. Let me put it this way. Carter know Granger will continue ruling in 2020 and want to give the PPP shared participation in the government. The American sees the PPP as an Indo based party and they do have a say in Guyana's elections. 

Prince posted:

skeldon_man posted:

Prince posted:

I believe Jimmy Carter talks between the ruling party (APNU) and the opposition (PPP) is to agree on a shared Government.

Any proof or is this your personal opinion? A shared government should alleviate some of Guyana's race problems unless the PNC wants to continue to be the pit bull in the corner.

Granger entrusted Nagamootoo to speak to the PPP in late 2015, but Jagdeo didn't want to listen to him. I believe Jimmy Carter is making it his duty to engage the PPP with this idea. Let me put it this way. Carter know Granger will continue ruling in 2020 and want to give the PPP shared participation in the government. The American sees the PPP as an Indo based party and they do have a say in Guyana's elections. 

So you are telling me that Jimmy Carter is condoning rigging the 2020 elections? Why can a shared government be accomplished by free and fair elections?

Skeldon, you get me on a trip here. I am not selling anything. I am sharing what I know about the shared governance that was discussed in late 2015. 

Time ripe for shared governance
-PNCR’s Alexander

Stabroek News
July 3, 2003

http://www.landofsixpeoples.com/news303/ns307036.htm

The debate is no longer whether Guyana needs an alternative form of government but rather what would be the most appropriate system, says PNCR Chairman, Vincent Alexander.

However, Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport, Gail Teixeira feels that the issue of shared governance in Guyana is a process that needs to evolve out of discussions.

Alexander, Teixeira and economist, Professor Clive Thomas exchanged views on `Shared governance as a mechanism for Conflict Resolution in Guyana’ at a forum held at the University of Guyana on Tuesday. The forum was sponsored by the University of Guyana/Clark Atlanta University’s Democratisation and Conflict Resolution in Guyana Project.

Thomas cautioned that the most common shared governance model might take as much as three years to allow for systems to become decentralised. Despite the threat that running a government without an opposition could cause gridlock, he put forward a number of reasons for shared governance. This included mitigating the sense of exclusion and racial insecurity in multi-ethnic societies that can lead to extremism.

Another factor is the “depth-side” in which there is a decline in the economy and an increase in social problems. He noted that inspite of the best natural and human resources the quality of life and standard of living of Guyanese had deteriorated because of political problems.

He added that in the current system of governance there was no fundamental separation of powers even after reforms had been put in place. In spite of free and fair elections and the removal of the former administration under which Guyanese experienced executive totalitarianism, he noted that executive totalitarianism continued up to now.

The general feeling from the audience was that Guyana was in a crisis and some form of shared governance should have already been put in place. But Teixeira felt the situation was not as bad as people were making it out to be.

Alexander said the PNCR was highly encouraged that support for executive power sharing in Guyana had widened significantly in recent times.

He said Guyana’s political history had unambiguously shown that the present political arrangements did not allow Guyana to rise to its fullest potential.

The winner-take-all system had stymied the best efforts of even the well-intentioned, he said, adding that it had created an environment where large sections of the population felt marginalised.

He said the system had created open conflicts threatening the social fabric. There had been a loss of national pride, a rise in ethnic distrust, an inability to tap the country’s vast natural resources and the incapacity in fixing the country’s problems.

He said the PNCR was no longer prepared to invest the country’s future and the welfare of the Guyanese people in a failed political system. He said the party believed that Guyana must seek shared governance with its central tenet being executive power-sharing.

Noting the PPP/C’s earlier suggestion of inclusive governance, Alexander said the PNCR would ensure that the issue of shared governance became a major issue on the agenda of the talks between the parties.

Decade and a half ago there were discussions on share governance, a model still to be determined.

Shared government; or at best a merger; between the PPPC and PNCR is the best approach for betterment in Guyana; similar to the early 1950's when Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham were in the then PPP.

There was a possibility in the 1980's between Jagan and Burnham but with Burnham's death, the then PNCR did not pursue this approach.

It will be seen what may develop with this initiative.

Shared Governance in a country with two main political parties,can be perceived as heading to one party state.

Is that good for Democracy ??

The merging of the PPPC and the PNCR could be conceived as a one party state/rule.

With the merging of the two groups, indeed numerous individuals from both areas will leave to join or form other parties.

Should such approach proceed, it is quite possible the united group could conceivably receive more than or less than 50% of the votes; depending on the focused issues at each election.

Demerara_Guy posted:

The merging of the PPPC and the PNCR could be conceived as a one party state/rule.

With the merging of the two groups, indeed numerous individuals from both areas will leave to join or form other parties.

Should such approach proceed, it is quite possible the united group could conceivably receive more than or less than 50% of the votes; depending on the focused issues at each election.

Point taken.

Me thinks the best solutions are Electoral Reform ,with emphasis on post election alliances.

Indeed and hopefully there will be the needed changes to the constitution.

Among the changes, there should be, at least ...

1. No proportional representation system.

2. There must be constituencies where individuals vote for their specific candidates.

3. The party with more than 50% of the seats form the government.

4. All parties have the opportunity to join together after the elections.

Why does Guyana need Jimmy Carter, and shared govt, and Exxon, and ABC countries to dictate their electoral system?  If people do the right thing and respect the law of the land then the country should have democracy.

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Why does Guyana need Jimmy Carter, and shared govt, and Exxon, and ABC countries to dictate their electoral system?  If people do the right thing and respect the law of the land then the country should have democracy.

It's more than respect for the law,the Burnham constitution with patch work,is not democratic too much power in the hands of the President.

Electoral Reform can resolve most of the issues,in a divided country.

Django posted:

Shared Governance in a country with two main political parties,can be perceived as heading to one party state.

Is that good for Democracy ??

My identical thought. Who will occupy opposition seats in parliament if there is a shared APNU+AFC+PPP government? Also, knowing the nature and history of these parties I can't imagine they will agree on most issues. As usual oneupmanship will prevail. Even the present coalition government will not endure, as they already have differences on sugar, LGE etc.

Bibi Haniffa posted:

Why does Guyana need Jimmy Carter, and shared govt, and Exxon, and ABC countries to dictate their electoral system?  If people do the right thing and respect the law of the land then the country should have democracy.

Guyana needs Carter for the same reason your beloved PPP needed him pre 92. I'm sure you didn't complain them. What has changed? The law of the land is a bastardized constitution that leads to dictatorship. And neither side wants to change it because it is a tool in their grand theft schemes!

As for the people, they are corrupt in every way in every sector of society as a short perusal of the news reveals. Government is a reflection of the people! Corruption is endemic to Guyanese, even after they flee overseas in many instances.

Fifty plus years of independence has shown that we need to be governed! So yes - bring in Carter, Exxon and ABC countries else we would be in even WORSE shape in spite of all the cussing y'all and the fat lady put pon the ABC countries!

Some people will FOREVER be SLAVES to the Imperialists!!!!!

Nehru posted:

Some people will FOREVER be SLAVES to the Imperialists!!!!!

ungrateful refugee dog

why then don't you pack yuh grip and migrate your ignorant Hindutva ass to Bharat Mata seeing that you hate "imperialist" America so!

Nehru posted:

Some people will FOREVER be SLAVES to the Imperialists!!!!!

The words "crabdaag" and "parasite" you reserve for Moses are an apt description of your stupid ass.  Skinning your teeth while sucking at the teat of "imperialist" America.