Guyana’s slide into dictatorship – Part IV

By Mark DaCosta- In a previous article in this series, the slang-term creeping dictatorship was introduced. It was mentioned that experts call that process, autocratization. It is defined as a process of regime change from one of democracy towards dictatorial autocracy that makes the exercise of political power more arbitrary and repressive, and that restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the processes of government and decision-making as is mandated by the Constitution of Guyana. 

This frightening democratic decline or erosion involves the weakening or hijacking of essential democratic institutions, such as the judiciary, parliament, the elections commission, other constitutional commissions, local government organs, the police force, the office of the public prosecutor, the peaceful transition of power, or the ability to have free and fair elections. Also, the violation of individual rights that underpin democracy, especially freedom of expression.

This article will now continue to examine the process of autocratization that is currently occurring in Guyana.

It has already been established in this series of articles that our country has crossed the line between being a democratic society and being an autocratic dictatorship. Guyanese, however, may wish to put that fact into perspective. As such, we should examine the matter more closely.

One recalls that historically, many countries have become dictatorships through sudden military insurrection such as recently occurred in Niger. One recalls, too, that many dictatorial regimes have maintained their positions of power through violence and use of physical oppression such as happened under the rule of tyrants like Stalin, Hitler and Mao who murdered millions of people in the name of outlandish ideologies.

Obviously, this is not at all what is happening in our country. Instead, we have what experts call a soft dictatorship – one that is consolidating political power in slow, creeping, subtle, hidden increments. For this reason, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact moment that our country became a dictatorship under the rule of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), but many analysts say that Guyana tipped into dictatorship within the last year. 

An article in the New York Times By Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman explains the process in the following way: 

“In recent decades, a new brand of authoritarian government has evolved that is better adapted to an era of global media, economic interdependence and information technology. The ‘soft’ dictators concentrate power, stifling opposition and eliminating checks and balances, while using hardly any violence.

“Some bloody or ideological regimes remain — as in Syria and North Korea — but the balance has shifted. In 1982, 27 percent of nondemocracies engaged in mass killings. By 2012, only 6 percent did. In the same period, though, the share of nondemocracies with no elected legislature fell to 15 percent from 31 percent worldwide.

“The new autocrats use propaganda, censorship and other information-based tricks to inflate their ratings and to convince citizens of their superiority over available alternatives.”

Guyanese will immediately recognise that this is the process that is occurring in our country. That is to say, that instead of using guns to get into power, the new dictators – such as those in the PPP – use the ballot box. And instead of using terror and oppression to stay in power, the autocrats use the manipulation of information, and control of the media. For example they give contracts to friendly media houses while punishing independent journalists. And they have full time monitoring and manipulation of social media platforms.

In conclusion, there is no doubt at all that Guyana is in the insidious grip of “the new dictators;” the creeping autocrats; the deadly, subtle thieves of freedom.

Guyana is most certainly in a dangerous situation.