PNC and the trust deficit

Few Guyanese would disagree in principle with the proposition that, if the PPP and PNC could arrive at a modus vivendi on the sharing of authority over the state, especially with oil in the offing, the “good life” might be achieved less problematically.
But that is “in principle”. In reality, proposals for “power sharing” in one form or another have been floating around for decades, but, as we know to our cost, the two parties that represent the two major groups are no closer than ever to achieving that goal. Many of the new parties that are being launched to contest the next elections have raised the issue quite vociferously, and it will certainly be a hot topic on the hustings. A review of its status might be opportune at this time.
In the first year of the new millennium, the PNC forced extensive changes in the constitution through violent street protests, which were designed to increase their influence in governance by expanding their parliamentary powers while creating and including them in a welter on Constitutional commissions.
The formation by the PPP government of four sectoral committees to scrutinise in real time the entire gamut of governmental activity was revolutionary, especially when, at any time, two of them were chaired by a member of the Opposition on a rotating basis.
These changes, however, did not satisfy the PNC, and just before he died in 2002, PNC leader Desmond Hoyte announced he was amenable to a “power sharing” arrangement that involved the Opposition being granted a number of Ministries in the Cabinet. The PPP responded the following year with a desideratum of its position, titled “Towards greater inclusive governance in Guyana – Building Trust to Achieve Genuine Political Cooperation”.
The PPP was obviously reacting to its history of interactions with the PNC in the preceding four decades, in which initiatives on “power sharing” were inevitably stymied because of the PNC’s refusal to keep its word on initiating substantive inclusion into the power structure.
The ethicist Sissela Bok, in her book “Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life”, posed the PPP’s dilemma with the PNC as one of violating the “principle of veracity”.
“The function of the principle of veracity as a foundation is evident when we think of trust.
“I can have different kinds of trust: that you will treat me fairly, that you will have my interests at heart, that you will do me no harm. But if I do not trust your word, can I have genuine trust in the first three? If there is no confidence in the truthfulness of others, is there any way to assess their fairness, their intentions to help or to harm? How, then, can they be trusted? Whatever matters to human beings, trust is the atmosphere in which it thrives.”
With the accession of the PNC to power in 2015, within a coalition framework involving the AFC, the General Secretary of the PPP reiterated that party’s openness to “shared governance”, which had been touted by the former in its campaign and manifesto as a “government of national unity” with “PPP members possibly invited to join the Cabinet”.
Subsequently, however, the PNC made an outcome-determinative decision to nix such an eventuality by designating its PM Nagamootoo to lead any discussions. The fact of the matter was that Nagamootoo sadly exemplified the very essence of the violation of the principle of veracity by the PNC that leads to a lack of trust.
The PNC and AFC had solemnified their coalition agreement as the “Cummingsburg Accord”, with the key point that “the Prime Minister shall have responsibility for domestic affairs and chairing the Cabinet.” President Granger, however, refused to keep this solemn promise on the specious ground that the Constitution did not permit it, and yet Nagamootoo did not balk.
How could the PPP trust the PNC to keep its word in any shared governance agreement when the PNC reneged on the promise made to its key ally that delivered its 33-seat majority?