Articles by Janet Jagan
Barney the otter, better known in Guyana as the water dog, was stretched out on a big rock in the middle of the Potaro River. He was enjoying the sharp rays of the sun and was almost asleep when he felt his tail being pulled vigorously. He gave a loud bark and shouted: “What's going on? Who is troubling me?”A gruff voice replied: “What are you doing on my rock? Get off and do it quickly if you know what's good for you!”
There was no mistaking the voice. It was Boris the alligator. Barney always kept his distance from Boris, for very good reasons, but on this occasion he was annoyed, particularly when he had been enjoying the delicious sun warming his skin. “So, you own the rock?” said Barney.
The reply was a growl from Boris. Barney decided on a new approach. “See here, Boris, it's a big rock and there's plenty of space for two of us.”
Boris pulled himself on the rock and saw that what Barney said was true. “OK,” said Boris, “I don't mind sharing the rock once you don't bother me.”
So Barney and Boris shared the rock and Boris was soon fast asleep in the burning sun. Barney was a little afraid of falling asleep near Boris. What if Boris became hungry? Barney stretched out again in the sun, but was careful not to fall asleep.
Later in the morning, Boris woke up and saw that Barney was awake.
“Why didn't you sleep?” asked Boris.
“Well, I wasn't so sleepy,” said Barney. “I bet you were afraid I'd eat you,” said the alligator. “But I'm not hungry. I had a big meal this morning.”
Barney the water dog decided that he would solve the problem and continue to use the rock. Barney was a great fisherman, the best of all the otters. Every morning he caught two big fish and carried them to the rock. When Boris came, he gobbled up the fish and slept under the sun.
Now and again the alligator and the water dog would chat together, exchange information and tell each other jokes as they sunned themselves. In no time they were friends, but Barney never forgot to bring the two fish to the rock each day.
One day Barney was swimming in the Potaro River when he felt something grab him. It was a huge anaconda snake and for once, Barney was frightened. The snake tried to wrap itself around the otter, who fought it off.
The struggle of the snake and the otter, churned up the water. The otter's bark and sharp cries could be heard far off. Barney was tiring, but not the snake. It looked like the end for the little water dog.
Just then Boris appeared and he grabbed the snake with his powerful jaws. A ferocious battle took place. The snake tried to coil itself around the alligator and the alligator tried to bite off the head of the snake. For a long time the two fought.
There was a terrible turmoil in the river. At last Boris won and the snake was dead. Boris pulled himself onto the rock and there was Barney, still shivering with fright. “It's OK,” said Boris. Barney thanked him for saving his life. “You're my friend,” said Boris. “I had to help.”
And so Barney the otter and Boris the alligator continued to share their rock in the Potaro River of Guyana.
© 2001 Janet Jagan
What about shared government!
The arguments for “shared government” as the People’s National Congress and those, mainly in the media backing it, centre around the factor that one party, the one that wins a majority in the elections every five years, runs the show and the losers are out in the cold.
They claim that this impairs democracy, divides the nation and puts decision-making in the hands of only one group - the winners at elections. Their complaint is that the concept of “winner takes all” is wrong and leads to bad and unrepresentative government. Their argument then is that if Executive Power is shared, it will be more fair and democratic.
After all they say, the PNC gets a large percentage of the votes, usually in the vicinity of 41% now that elections are no longer rigged. The PNC used to argue that the constituency system was no good because the PPP would win with more seats, but not necessarily a large percentage of the votes. Thus, they argued in the 1960’s, the system was unfair as the PPP got disproportionately more seats than it earned percentage wise and therefore they opted for proportional representation, which they said, was much more fair.
And so the USA and the UK, neither of which embraced proportional representation at any level, backed the PNC’s claim and thus proportional representation was introduced.
However, since 1992 and the next two elections, the PPP won over 50% of the votes under PR and this now, is unfair and so they insisted at the time of constitutional reform that a modified system including the essence of the constituency system be introduced. And it was, for the 2001 elections. Despite these changes, the PPP won again, so there has to be something wrong with the system which allows the PPP to win consistently.
Now it’s something else - shared government. Both the PNC and the local media accept that the USA is the greatest democracy on earth and the PNC leaders frequently rush to Washington to influence lawmakers about the injustices of the local method of governance. So let’s take a look at what goes on there.
I read with interest an article by the well known Washington journalist Elizabeth Drew in her piece entitled “Hung Up in Washington” in the February 12, 2004 issue of the New York Review. She writes about the polarization in the House of Representatives of the two parties along party lines which has resulted in major legislation from airline safety to expansion of Medicine being held up and the difficulty in reaching compromises.
She writes: “The increasing unwillingness to compromise is not only blocking legislation but, it is not overdramatic to say, is subverting fundamental concepts or democracy. The people’s business is not getting done.” She then quotes from the Chicago Tribune that the very idea of democracy is being threatened “by acting .... to create districts in which a single party has an overwhelming majority .... Members of Congress protect their jobs and make voting in general elections an empty exercise.” The increasing number of safe seats, she writes, makes fewer and fewer members interested in compromise. She also notes that extreme partisanship has strongly affected major legislation in the 2003 session of Congress. The Medicare bill adopted by Congress, she writes, and signed into law by Bush was put across by the drugs and insurance industries both of which have contributed a great deal of money to elected politicians, in particular to Republicans and have strong influences in Washington, and so on.
Looks to me like they have more problems than we have and don’t forget, the two parties, the Republicans and Democrats ran neck and neck at the 2000 election with the Democrats getting the largest percentage of votes and the Republicans gaining office in what is still challenged as unfair. The same this year seem to be likely, as so far the two major parties are running close, and not the 41% - 53% here.
The $64 question is -- is there a move in the USA for shared government because of all the problems and even the possible subversion of democracy? No way!
© 2004 Janet Jagan
© 1999 Cheddi Jagan Research Centre. All rights reserved.
