Liberal democracy is an advanced but still partial expression of human freedom in the social setting, and Guyana’s rank of 92 out of 179 countries in the 2026 V-Democracy Liberal Democracy Index suggests that, notwithstanding all the talk about return of democracy in 1992, it is nowhere near becoming the democracy it could, and its people have stagnated at a substantial level of unfreedom, i.e. having their lives and resources extensively dictated by others rather than by themselves.
Indeed, the V-Dem ‘History of regimes of the world 1975-2025’ suggests nothing less ,and apart from Haiti, which has been plagued by difficulties, the democratic distance that has historically separated Guyana from its other Caribbean Community partners makes it an outlier in this relatively small but exemplar regional zone of democracy.
It has been known for some time that even governments produced by free and fair elections may be inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted, irresponsible, dominated by special interests and incapable of adopting policies demanded by the public good. V-Dem Index is the first comprehensive effort to measure the existence of the other qualities that are required for a liberal democracy to truly to exist.
And given Guyana’s democratic deficit and the perennial efforts of current politicians to hoodwink the population, here I will give more space to outlining the other necessary dimensions of a truly liberal democratic process as suggested by V-Dem, with some indications of the way forward for Guyana.
2026 LIBERAL DEMOCRACY INDEX (LDI) & ALL COMPONENTS INDICES
Countries LDI EDI LCI ECI PCI DCI
Denmark 1 1 1 1 7 5
Canada 23 16 31 62 25 52
UK 30 37 25 38 24 31
Barbados 32 29 41 28 144 16
Jamaica 33 31 44 35 55 28
Trinidad/ Tobago 34 35 42 29 60 66
Suriname 41 83 55 51 53 56
USA 51 47 69 94 20 91
Guyana 92 92 102 63 111 133
Haiti 146 136 148 176 141 102
The V-Dem Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) captures both liberal and electoral aspects of democracy based on the Liberal Component Index (LCI) and the Electoral Democracy Index (EDI). In the EDI several institutional features such as freedom of association and freedom of expression seek to guarantee free and fair elections. The LCI goes further and captures the limits placed on governments in terms of the protection of individual liberties, and the checks and balances between institutions.
The Electoral Democracy Index (EDI) captures not only the extent to which regimes hold clean, free and fair elections, but also the existence of actual freedom of expression, alternative sources of information and association as well as male and female suffrage and the degree to which government policy is vested in elected political officials.
The Liberal Component Index (LCI) embodies the importance of protecting individual and minority rights against both the tyranny of the state and the tyranny of the majority. It also ensures effective checks and balances between institutions and in particular limit the exercise of executive power by strong rule of law, constitutionally protected civil liberties, independent judiciary and strong parliament that can hold the executive to account and limit its powers.
The Egalitarian Component Index (ECI) measures to what extent all social groups enjoy equal capabilities to participate in the political arena. It relies on the idea that democracy is a system of rule ‘by the people’ where citizens participate in various ways, such as making informed voting decisions, expressing opinions and demonstrating. A more equal distribution of resources across groups results in political equality and hence democracy.
The Participatory Component Index (PCI) emphasizes active participation by citizens in all political processes. It prefers direct rule by citizens when practicable. It considers four important aspects of citizen participation: civil society organisations, mechanisms of direct democracy and participation and representation through empowered regional and local governments.
Finally, the V-Dem Deliberative Component Index (DCI) is one in which public reasoning, focused on the common good, motivates political decisions – as contrasted with emotional appeals, solidary attachments, parochial interests or coercion. Democracy requires more than an aggregation of existing preferences. There should also be respectful dialogue at all levels among informed and competent participants who are open to persuasion.
Guyana is in a ‘grey zone’ at the bottom of the electoral democracy category between the latter and electoral autocracy. As autocrats try to placate their populations, electoral democracy has been growing but as suggested above, the 2026 Index warned ‘that electoral democracies are growing in numbers should not be misinterpreted as good news.’
Experts have not so long ago considered the situation in Guyana and concluded that its present political/democratic trajectory will continue unless the political leadership comes to grip with the realities and make efforts to change their context.
‘Guyana will continue to face unstable socio-cultural and governance conditions until ethnic inclusion in the decision-making process is institutionalized. … This type of Westminster system does not encourage participatory processes and reaching consensus with the opposition and other key pressure groups on public policy priorities. … The ruling party, the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) and the opposition coalition the A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) need to find a way to form a functioning democracy based on power-sharing rather than a “winner takes all” (majoritarian) mentality’ (2021 USAID report ‘Democracy, Human Rights and Governance assessment’ in Guyana.’
Interestingly, ‘The evidence is overwhelming that majoritarian (winner-takes-all) democracy is the exception rather than the rule in actual practices and traditions in all parts of the world. In fact, it is highly exceptional, limited to very few countries, mainly the United Kingdom and countries influenced by the British political tradition …‘The United States constitution is based on such principles as separation and division of powers, checks and balances of all sorts, minority protection, extraordinary majorities, etc, the very opposite of simple majoritarianism’ (Thinking about democracy. Arend Lijphart, 2008).
Even with all the checks and balances above, the V-Dem Index noted that under President Donald Trump the level of democracy in the USA – ranked 24 last year and now 51 – has fallen back to 1965 levels. ‘The speed with which American democracy is currently dismantled is unprecedented in modern history.’ With a largely unaccountable, ethnic regime in place in Guyana its ranking is not surprising.
Of importance, the Index stated that research shows that while there is no recipe, a combination of three key factors seems to be important if undemocratic governance is to be reversed. ‘(i) strong institutional safeguards acting as the ‘brakes’ on autocratization: electoral integrity, judiciary constraints, and legislative constrains; (ii) robust societal action serving as the “engine” of democratic revival: unified opposition, robust and active civil society, independent media, and sustained non-violent mass pro-democracy protests; and (iii) acting early since most U-turns happen around the end of the first electoral cycle.’
As this column has repeatedly argued, the people always need to keep their powder dry. But what happens when, in the few cases like Guyana, because of racial/ethnic/ partisanship, there is in effect no people? Guyanese are trapped in this political cul de sac: there is no substantial public opinion with which to hold governments accountable and no appropriate elite consensus as to the way forward!
