Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
`‘If U.S. democracy should fail, … any post-democratic American future would reflect not only the nation’s specific past but also its sensibilities of this century …. Unlike interwar fascism, which openly condemned parliamentary democracy, the current wave of ethnonationalist authoritarian populism in the West—dubbed “illiberal democracy” by the new darling of the American right, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán — prefers to preserve elections as a legitimizing mechanism. The aim of this illiberalism is a “managed democracy” unchecked by an independent judiciary and untrammeled by the inconvenience of real democratic accountability that comes through the hazard of electoral defeat and alternating parties in government’ (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/nazi-germany-hitler-democracy-weimar/671605/0).
It is widely acknowledged that the judiciary in Guyana is in a state of collapse, and the Westminster parliamentary system bequeathed by the British is, as Walter Bagot suggested, like ‘a big meeting of more or less idle people’. For two decades, heads of the judiciary have not been appointed because the mechanism that makes competitive democratic government accountable, namely ‘a united public opinion’, does not exist in Guyana, and it makes no sense to leave such important decisions to the goodwill of politicians. If you had any doubt about the nature of parliament and the importance of a fluctuating public opinion, Stabroek News carried the following byline: ‘Gov’t threw out 31 amendments by Patterson to petroleum bill including greater oversight by National Assembly’ (SN: 16/08/2023). Consider the absurdity of this attempt to make 31 amendments to an important bill in a single sitting of parliament. Cheddi Jagan had laid down that Bills of more than six pages should be examined during the committee stage, but this was abandoned. The vaunted ‘separation of powers’ does not exist and what the Opposition thinks or wants is irrelevant in this era of ethnic/political dominance!
Last week I suggested that the above type of ‘illiberalism’ is akin to the ethnic/political dominance for which the PPP hopes to win international support. Recognizing this trend, the Caribbean Guyana Institute for Democracy (CGID) and various Guyanese diaspora organisations have convened an important conference on Guyana in Washington on 27-28 September 2023 with the theme ‘Promoting Inclusive Governance and Economic Growth, Equal Justice, Social equality & Sustainable Development for all Guyanese in the Era of Oil and Gas.’ Important lawmakers, businesses, social activists and others are expected to participate, and given this opportunity one must hope that the conference will at the very least outline a pathway out of the existing political dilemma.
There are two important dimensions to the undemocratic and ethnic nature of the PPP. First, as noted above, real ‘democratic accountability … comes through the hazard of electoral defeat’ by way of the fluctuating public opinion that usually exists in an ethnically homogeneous society. Let me repeat it does not depend upon the ‘willingness’ of competing politicians. In multiethnic bicommunal societies laden with electoral manipulations such as Guyana, such public opinions as do exist are usually partial and the only manner for an ethnic group to secure its interest is by way of having a seat at the executive decision-making table, i.e., power sharing.
The United States and the West are well aware of this, for during the 1950s as they assessed that the PPP supported by an ethnic majority was aligned to international communism, during the independence discourses they offered shared governance to the PPP and after this was refused, perhaps because that party was committed to Soviet communism, they threw and kept it out of office for nearly three decades until Marxism/Leninism was internationally defeated.
The second has to do with the morality of political representation and how it develops historically. Is it democratic for an ethnically based government with a marginal majority to monopolise political decision-making: to be able to do what the PPP has recently done in relation to the Petroleum Bill? Furthermore, in a competitive democratic system, real politics suggests that to maintain their political support, the representatives of the ethnic group in government will prioritise their supporters.
The American Constitution is an ideal demonstration that there is no single form of democracy: what is established will depend upon how the political relations have historically developed and upon the rule of moral and statutory law. Ethnic political relations in Guyana have been characterized by persistent conflict and underdevelopment. In such a case democracy must entail using various mechanisms such as power-sharing – minority inclusion in the national power structure, proportionality – distribution of resources according to the size of the group, veto power – supermajority etc. to avoid decisions that adversely affect vital interests of the minority, and politics of negotiation, compromise, consensus, and indecision instead of majority rule.
So here we are today with a broken political system but also with an opportunity. The major global struggle is now between democracy and autocracy, with the USA leading the former and preferring not to have autocratic regimes on the American continent. Secondly, the current US president has been a part of the process that encouraged and supported President Bill Clinton to become involved in the Northern Ireland power-sharing process that led to the Good Friday Agreement and peace. Indeed, there was and appears still to be bipartisan support in the US Congress for the Good Friday Agreement. Therefore, once the political will exists, the present American dimension can be used to establish an effective form of liberal democracy in Guyana.
Not surprising then, that upon coming to office, the present US government indicated in 2020 to the political elites in Guyana that they should seek to reform the present winner-takes-all system and establish an inclusive and functioning democracy. Across the board, socialized in the British Westminster-type political arrangement, the ‘winner-takes-all’ mentality is ingrained in Guyanese society. Some will attempt to use this mindset to their benefit, but it has not and will not put an end to the troubles in Guyana. Let us hope that after two generations of political conflict, the conference proposed by the CGID will effectively exploit the present opportunity to help to bring lasting peace and prosperity to all Guyanese.
