Support Village Voice News With a Donation of Your Choice.
According to the eminent political theorist, the late Samuel P Huntington, ‘Democracy (meaning open, free, and fair elections) is one public virtue, not the only one, [and] … governments produced by elections may be inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted, irresponsible, dominated by special interests, and incapable of adopting policies demanded by the public good such as ‘effective citizen control over policies, responsible government, honesty and openness in politics, informed and rational deliberation, equal participation and power’ etc. This incapacity makes such governments undesirable, but they do not make them undemocratic.’
These days, every two-bit autocrat is holding elections to enhance their legitimacy by claiming to be democratic. Perhaps, to help and remove the fussiness between elections and the other virtues of a democratic political system, one of the most comprehensive databases – the Variety of Democracy Index – provides a classification of four types of political regimes. In descending order: liberal democracies, electoral democracies, electoral autocracies, and closed autocracies. Guyana is classed an electoral democracy– (minus) i.e. verging on becoming an electoral autocracy.
Governments’ attempts to pursue their enemies abroad are as old as time but the murder of Leon Trotsky in 1940 in Mexico by his rival, the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, stands out for me. The botched poisoning of a former Russian military officer in the United Kingdom in 2018 and a Russian opposition leader in 2020 allegedly by the Russian state suggest that not much may have changed. If anything, the recent alleged murder of the Sikh separatist leader in Canada by the Indian authorities, of the Saudi dissident journalist by the Saudi state in 2018 in Turkey, etc., suggest that this approach should be taken seriously.
Like Rickford Burke, the recently murdered people had been complaining about the dictatorial nature of the regimes in their countries and Burke is on record as believing that the PPP regime is racist, corrupt and has committed all manner of illegal and extrajudicial judicial atrocities and infractions. Only recently, he claimed that he was being stalked by an unknown person allegedly from the Guyana embassy and now we have this attempt by the regime to have him extradited to its extremely questionable judicial jurisdiction.
On the V-Dem Index, Guyana is only marginally preferable than the above-mentioned states, which are either elected or closed autocracies. On the 2023 Rule of law Index, Guyana is at 76 – the lowest in the Commonwealth Caribbean. For two decades it has been without substantive heads of the judiciary! Only a few weeks ago, I pointed out that in Guyana there is no separation of powers – an ethnic political party controls the executive, the parliament and as a result has significant influence over the judiciary, which some legal professionals have assessed is nearing collapse. Expecting Burke to return and face the law in Guyana is like expecting dissidents of the above regimes to do the same: absurd!
Burke will have to be extradited and it appears that the political offense exceptions to United States extradition policy almost guarantees safe haven to nonviolent political offenders; more so those from questionable judicial jurisdictions such as Guyana. My question is: why is the regime wasting the states’ resources and allowing itself to be lulled into being so predictably autocratic? It cannot be because of what Burke has been saying: so far as I am aware he is not saying much that is new although he tends to be more pointed. He and Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo appear to have a cussing match, but state resources should not be used for personal vendettas.
There is, however, some merit in the position that it is Burke’s access to the halls of US power and his activism that are very troubling for the PPP. Given their institutional memory and arrangements, the present US government has already made their decision on what is wrong with Guyana and what is required to make it right. The PPP busying itself since the last local government elections to change US perception by attempting to buy over Africans has been an abject failure. But Burke-like activism is vital to propel the US administration to make a difference in Guyana in a timely manner and so the PPP needs to discredit him.
The PPP appears also to have missed the depth of bipartisan understanding about countries such as Guyana in the US congress so without further alienating the Biden administration, the PPP seeks to surreptitiously sell itself as building a Singapore-like state in Guyana to its rightwing supporters, who it hopes will soon take government with a new republican regime in the US. We have, for example, Dr. Vishu Bisram telling us that the ‘The Singapore model is highly recommended for states such as Guyana,’ (SN: 25/12/2023).
Please note that Singapore is classed an ‘elected autocracy’ and it was not invited to the 110-nation democratic summit the Biden administration recently convened. I have argued elsewhere (VV: 13/03/2022) that Singapore is significantly different from Guyana and that what is still taking place there is unacceptable. The following are a few of the offensive titbits that fit nicely into the PPP’s notion of governance and Burke’s activism persistently exposes them to those who matter.
Singapore’s parliamentary political system has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the family of the current prime minister since 1959. It does not have an independent election commission; its elections department is a government body attached to the prime minister’s office. All domestic newspapers, radio stations, and television channels are owned by companies linked to the government. Editorials and news coverage generally support state policies, and self-censorship is common.
The law gives government ministers the authority to identify false online content and order its removal or correction. All public universities and political research institutions have direct government links that enable political influence and interference in hiring and firing. There is a ban on government employees joining unions and nearly all unions are affiliated with the National Trade Union Congress that is openly allied with the ruling party. The country’s top judges are appointed by the president on the advice of the prime minister. Judgments against the government are rare but the judiciary is perceived to act more impartial in business-related cases. The LGBT+ community faces significant legal obstacles. (https://freedomhouse.org/country /singapore/freedom-world/2020).
As for racism, a study conducted by Dr. Peter Cook suggested a solution to the existing economic disparities between races in Singapore. He proposed precisely what I have been suggesting to the PPP. ‘The first step is to acknowledge that racism is an issue and be willing to have extensive discussions about it. Singapore could carry out something like what Australia has done; the government could release a 10-year plan to reduce racial disparities (‘The Economic Roots of Racism in Singapore’ 2021/07/010).
To crown it all, Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of the city state, was also a racist. ‘Chinese are the product of a civilization which has bread a people with a belief in high performance, while the Malays, more fortunately endowed by nature had not the need to strive so hard. As a result, the Malays feel they are being asked to compete unfairly; they will not admit that because of history, they are a different gene pool and do not have the qualities that can enable them to enter the same race’ (Ibid)!
