Last week a letter by Mr. Antonio Dey, a final year university student, advised that we ‘Vote for policies and not party’ (KN Letters: 03/02/2025). This missive grabbed my attention for notwithstanding its seeming innocence, it raised a few issues that promise to haunt the 2025 political discourse as political apologists distort Guyanese political reality in search of partisan support. Here I bring attention to a few of these issues: the nature of political relations in Guyana, the importance of an historical context and the place of ‘young people’ in the political process.
‘The importance of political parties cannot be overstated; the operation of the whole governmental apparatus is dependent on them. The presence of political parties in any nation is one of the good markers of a successful democratic transition. The reality is that democracy is impossible to imagine in the absence of political parties. They’re the driving force behind everything the government does.’ (https://bscholarly.com/roles-and-importance-of-political-parties-in-democracy/).
According to Mr. Dey, ‘The younger generation must diverge from the concept of party loyalism, which may have been instilled by their parents and grandparents and critically assess whether these political parties embody the qualities we seek in our leaders.’ Further, [as] we approach another election, I am not interested in the mistakes of the Former A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance For Change (APNU+AFC) or the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C).’ He called upon ‘the younger electorate to critically examine the policies of both the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and the People’s National Congress Reform (PNC/R) to determine which of these major political parties is best suited to govern our nation’ (KN, op cit).
It is important to note that Mr. Dey seems to suggest that in Guyana meaningful political choice only comes if one chooses to vote for the two larger parties, but how meaningful is the choice? One of the major criticisms of the political system is that given their constitutional place, political parties in Guyana do the opposite of what the above generality suggests: they suppress the growth of a liberal democratic culture. For example, their role in the electoral process is too pervasive and it is the view of many well-informed persons that, among other things, the initial stage of democratisation should include the establishment of more directly constituency elected and accountable members of parliament (MPs).
Far more questionably, Mr. Dey dismisses about 40% (the older generation) of the population and suggests that the remaining 60% forget their history! This call upon people to forget their past has far reaching implications and is somewhat surprising for a final year university student. If not largely by their history how can people critically assess the parties? Certainly not only on their immediate performance.
Indeed, such an approach will be tremendously disadvantageous to the People’s progressive Party (PPP) and explains why it falsely persistently seeks succour in the Forbes Burnham era. After all, no regime that has fortuitously come upon the present quantity of resources should possibly have ended up today with such a alienated, disunited and corrupt society that is largely the result of its own policy of divide and rule, the widespread practice of purchasing political allegiance and disrupting the normal democratic process in every crevice of Guyanese society.
Furthermore, since all political parties usually have policies on most major issues of the day and one cannot be expected to agree with all a party’s policy positions, one would need to prioritise. How is this to happen in the ethnic context of Guyana that has had three quarters of a century of ethnic suspicion and conflict in which the two recommended political parties have developed as ethnic defence institutions? Should I now be expected forget that past and prioritise as being in my interest some very dubious roads, hotels and unsystematic handouts?
The answer is no. The past must not be forgotten but should be reconciled around some consensual interpretations. That has not happened in Guyana because there has been no consensual process to make it so. Indeed, most of the governmental/presidential inquiries thus far have been conducted by largely government-chosen commissioners and while legal, they are devoid of national legitimacy and the regime has ben forces to rely of forms of pecuniary incentives to win support.
Much of the attempts to differentiate between the political behaviour of the young and old in Guyana come from two main sources. Those who are disillusioned with the present but have no answer other than the utopian dream of ridding themselves of the present political actors, and those like Mr. Antonio Dey who will benefit from the youth forgetting the miserable present conditions that have been created by those who still want their support.
I cannot remember a time in modern Guyanese history that young people were thwarted or discouraged from participating in politics. Forbes Burnham, Cheddi and Janet Jagan, Desmond Hoyte, Bharrat Jagdeo and Irfaan Ali were all relatively young when they arrived in the political hierarchy and/or took government. Yet look at the deplorable state of Guyana. Cheddi excused his disastrous early contribution by claiming that it was the result of youthful exuberance. On a more political moral trajectory, we now have Asha Kissoon following in the footsteps of Raphael Trotman, Khemraj Ramjattan, and Tabetha Sarabo-Halley – all young people who could not properly overcome the boundaries of what was theirs and what was not!
Young people tend to be more contemporarily attuned, have more energy and are willing to take greater risks but rarely in politics does any generation voluntarily step aside for another. One must be prepared to struggle through the ranks. Which in politics usually begins with the party youth and other associated movements. Like in any other institution, levels of competence, astuteness and loyalty are required, though in politics, particularly at the highest levels, the latter take precedence.
Mr. Dey tells us that, ‘On election day, we, as future leaders, must elect individuals who exhibit exemplary leadership qualities in our multicultural society.’ But unfortunately, his primary example of the absence of exemplary leadership in Guyana appears to be the unacceptable culture that ‘has persisted among these two major political parties, characterised by heckling and name-calling …. in the presence of Mr. Manzoor Nadir, the Speaker of the National Assembly!’
Some would say that Mr. Nadir has been indulging in his own excesses: even banning the parliamentary use of words like ‘corruption’ in what purports to be a liberal democratic parliament. But that aside, the behaviour of which Mr. Dey complains is relatively trivial and traditional in Westminster-type parliamentary systems. Not so long ago, the speaker of the Canadian House of Commons was severely heckled when he stood to make a speech demanding that the ‘Excessive, disruptive, and loud heckling must be toned down.’ Maybe the speaker can think of universalising in the National Assembly another British tradition. On budget day, the British chancellor of the exchequer is afforded the privilege to drink alcohol as he delivers his long and complex budget speech!
