[Statement to the United States, Department of State, IAPADA-G sponsored, briefing on Guyana, Washington (online), 07/07/2023]
‘Problem of Governance in Guyana’
Thank you chair and ladies and gentlemen for having us at this briefing. I have a very short time to outline a very complicated story. Most of what has been said thus far pertains mainly to the socio/economic condition of African Guyanese, but for decades the political context has ricocheted negatively across the entire society and needs to be fundamentally reformed.
As you shall see, the problem is structural: the system allows all manner of undemocratic behaviour without exacting serious consequences largely because Guyana is a bicommunal society with two ethnic groups and their political parties – Indians aligned to the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and Africans aligned to the People’s National Congress (PNC) – almost evenly controlling over 80% of the voting population.
The West has a formidable institutional memory so you will know that from the day it became obvious that Guyana would be independent, these two ethnic groups have been locked in a deadly political struggle. This was held in check during the cold-war period of ‘containment’ because the West believed that the PPP was communist and for almost three decades supported the autocratic rule of the PNC. But the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, competitive democratic elections, which the PPP won, were held in 1992 and in around 1994 ethnic confrontation returned and has persisted with the loss of hundreds of lives and no end in sight.
Writing on nationality and representative government in 1861, John Stuart Mill hit the nail on the head. He claimed that democratic representative government cannot exist in the absence of a united public opinion to hold governments accountable, and Scott Orr (‘The Theory and Practice of Ethnic Politics: How What We Know about Ethnic Identity Can Make Democratic Theory Better’ 2007) contextualised Guyana’s present situation nicely:
‘To the extent that the present constitutional arrangements ignore the ethnic context tension, alienation, disturbances, and underdevelopment result. There is little point in blaming the community leaders as in the competitive political environment, their stories do win them maximum support. There is little point in pleading right-doing for with similar facts the opposite story can also be told. Nowhere has this story played out differently. It is a mistake to blame the outcome on anyone. Power sharing becomes inevitable because of the logic of political cleavage in competitive democracies.’
Well, the present constitutional arrangements in Guyana ignore the ethnic context, and last Sunday’s editorial in Stabroek News, which is not unsympathetic to the PPP, provided a snapshot of the present political environment and the regime’s attempt to contain it. It claimed that the PPP/C is obsessed with control of all political spaces in society and wants its own people in all key positions, including in supposedly autonomous institutions. (SN: 04/07/2023). It observed that: ‘The problem with controlling every institution and governing from the centre means the country will eventually become a one-party state.’
Make no mistake, the recent PNC government showed similar autocratic tendencies. And all of this is compounded by substantial electoral rigging facilitated by a dysfunctional Elections Commission and a bloated electoral list that the Caribbean Community recount group and the European Union elections observer mission to the 2020 elections recommended be urgently fixed.
Thus, after more than half a century of ethnic conflict, preachy editorials and comments have been unable to foster the growth of a united public opinion with which to hold governments accountable. Indeed, since a solution must lead to power sharing that limits the control of their side on the government, the political parties and their supporters doggedly refuse to recognise that in Guyana’s context inclusivity and good governance cannot be left to the will of competing politicians.
For decades the Carter Centre and others have been telling regimes that the winner-takes-all political system needs to be reformed. But recently, in what was recognised as an unprecedented move, the 2020 US State Department human rights report joined in calling upon the political elite to reform the winner-takes-all political system and establish a more inclusive functioning democracy.
Therefore, we will continue to:
- Press for changes to the constitution that will make governments more democratic,responsive, and inclusive.
- Insist that,within a consensual framework, electoral reform be immediately completed.
- Require the government to immediately fulfill its various United Nations commitments and establish arrangements to bring socio/economic equality and justice to all Guyanese.
