‘We do not altogether share the confidence …that a comprehensive loyalty to British Guiana can be stimulated among peoples of such diverse (cultural) origins.’
(Report of the British Guiana Constitutional Commission 1954)
So far, the pessimism of the British Guiana Constitutional Commission has been correct, and I believe that only a radical reformist approach to governance, elements of which are presented below in the unsolicited policy note given to Dr. David Hinds of the Working People’s Alliance in the runup to the 2020 General and Regional Elections, can facilitate a change in direction. I also take this opportunity to provide some idea of the kind of thinking that produced the policy note.
On this 60th anniversary of Guyana’s independence, one could easily argue that governance is much more autocratic today than at any time since independence. Not surprising then, that recently, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) members on the opposition benches in parliament, Drs. Terrence Campbell and David Hinds, have been calling for the creation of a ‘mass movement’ to confront and force the PPP to operate in a transparent, consensual and accountable, i.e. democratic manner.
Dr. Hinds even went as far as referring to Guyana as a ‘nation’. Unless he used ‘nation’ as a synonym for ‘country’, which I suspect he did, I believe that he has set himself an impossible task. Guyana is an ethnically divided society in which a united public opinion, the foundation upon which a mass movement that cuts across ethnic lines is established, does not exist. Indeed, in 1861 John Stuart Mills, the eminent British philosopher known for his defence of liberty, argued that ‘free institutions,’ i.e., democratic government, ‘are next to impossible in a country made up of different (sizable cultural) nationalities.’
What Guyana has had are large scale ethnic expressions of dissatisfaction that have now been largely suppressed. And in this milieu, in which regimes are claiming to be democratic rather than making efforts to become so, one must be prepared to come upon all manner of confusing, self-interested, and propagandistic interpretations.
In his ‘Nationhood, its evolution: Prospects for National Unity,’ Mr. Kit Nacimiento, while correctly observing that after some 60 years of independence Guyana is not yet a nation, exhorted ‘We must admit to who we are and identify as Guyanese.’ What does that mean? I am a legal citizen of Guyana, to that I admit, but this does not come close to my admitting that Guyana is a ‘nation.’
Nascimento also tells us that building a nation ‘cannot be driven from the top. It must begin at the bottom, at the neighbourhood level, at the community level, at the local government level.’ He is wrong: the desire to create a nation is ideally driven from everywhere, but the effort is doomed if, as the PPP is doing, the top is shouting ‘One Guyana’ and simultaneously dictatorially making and implementing divisive policies.
Nascimento then advised that: ‘We must remove the option from our political leaders to rule based on ethnic allegiance. We must force upon our political leaders the absolute need to win elections resulting from the policies and programmes which they present to the electorate, not from the ethnicity of the leader of the Party (KN: 26/05/2026). I don’t know where he got that from, but I have not heard anyone in Guyana, even in the PPP, saying, although that is precisely what it is doing, that one should rule based on ethnic allegiance. In relation to countries like Guyana, what I have heard from most experts is that ethnic interest should be expressed constitutionally/politically.
‘The most important choice facing constitution writers is that of a legislative electoral system, ….[and] there is a scholarly consensus against majoritarian (winner takes all) systems in divided societies. … If any generalisation about institutional design is sustainable it is that majoritarian systems are ill-advised for countries with deep ethnic, regional, religious, or other emotional and polarising divisions. Where cleavage groups are sharply defined and group identities (and intergroup insecurities and suspicions) deeply felt, the overriding imperative is to avoid broad and indefinite exclusion from power of any significant group’ (https://peterlevine.ws/2011_readings/lijphart.pdf).
For various reasons, our post independence attempts at constitutional reforms failed the primary test and need I remind Mr. Nacimiento that liberal democracy is much more than elections, although one of the world’s major observer groups from the European Union refused to say that the 2025 elections in Guyana were free. Everywhere, autocrats are holding and ‘winning’ elections after they have captured and severely mutilated the electoral process, and on almost every serious international indicator the Guyana government is closer to being an autocratic than a democratic government!
Policy notes
General problems: 1. The separation of powers: the fundament principle of liberal government is absent in Guyana. 2. This is made worse by two large ethnic groups and parties having control over 80% of the voting population. 3. No proper government accountability exists. 4. The system of governance is autocratic and suboptimal. 5. Decades of quarrels and clashes based on claims and counter claims of ethnic discrimination have cost much life and property. 6. The national and international rights of racial/ethnic groups to their own independent association is being blatantly violated.
Suggested solutions: 1. In Guyana the separation of powers does not exist and so the ethnic political parties and, ipso facto, their followers control the executive that controls the parliament and have tremendous influence over the judiciary. 2. In the absence of the means to properly hold governments accountable, the executive authority of the state must be curtailed by direct power-sharing, veto, supermajorities, devolution, civil society enhancements, etc. 3. Independent public commissions and committees must in spirit and deed, be made independent of the government.
4. The appointment and behaviour of the entire government, opposition and all public bodies must pass the test of an independent, preferably non-resident, ethical ombudsman. 5. There needs to be an annual ethnic audit to consider disparities, opportunities, obstacles, etc. and recommend the changes necessary to improve the situation in a timely manner. 6. There should be about 40 instead of 20 directly elected members of parliament chosen under their own names and responsible to their constituencies with the latter having recall authority and the parliamentary top-up list should be closed.
7. Those of Amerindian ethnicity should makeup not less that 15% of the members of parliament. If acting together, 50% of them from each the governing and opposition parties, should vote that an executive or parliament action runs counter to the interest of Amerindians, the matter should be at lest delayed say for about three months and returned to the relevant bodies for reconsideration. 8. Local democracy should be based on the principle of subsidiarity – nothing should be done at a higher level that can be done well or better at a lower level – and strict rules made to prevent the involvement of central government into local affairs. 9. A specific percentage (15% for example) of the national budget shall be constitutionally set aside for regional and local authorities based on an agreed upon formula of equity and can only be changed by a 2/3 majority in the National Assembly.
10. The Guyana Elections Commission, the national budgeting process, election financing, etc., should adhere to international best practice standards. 11. Without question, given Guyana’s history there needs to be a completely new voters list, and a new one every time it is requested by party or parties representing 33% of the seats in the National Assembly. 12. Guyana’s PR system is extremely representative: the ‘joindeer list’ helps to make all votes count and should be properly institutionalized. 13. Obstacles to the participation of small parties should be reconsidered and where practicable removed. 14. The media sector, particularly the state media, needs to be democratically arranged and controlled.
Some elections ideas: 1. Coalition agreements – the bible of the partnership: should be made justiciable if possible. 2. A coalition leadership council that is not too unwieldly and led by the PNC should mirror the broad-based national structure and processes of government the coalition intends. 3. To deal with the nonfulfillment of manifesto promises and other defined difficulties, like in Germany, members of the coalition should have the right to demand that their concerns be determined and recommendations made by an independent 3-person tribunal, the chair of which will be chosen by the two other members one each chosen by the council and the complainant. 4. Other immediate issues of concern are: GECOM’s structure and processes, new list, biometrics, ethnic disparity study, UBI to counter PPP miserly and haphazard grants, the judiciary and separation of powers, etc. 5. If possible, complicate the process somewhat by placing a credible Indian woman, if you have anyone, as Prime Ministerial candidate
