In which properly organised sport in this part of the universe does the following scenario presented by a Stabroek News editorial exist? (SN: 04/04/2023) ‘The fact that the two playing fields differ vastly in size and quality of surface is of no consequence. Two players have chosen to skirt the tenets of the game, thumb their noses at the concept of sportsmanship, and adopt a similar framework of strategies in charting a course to their desired end game.
So far, their apparent successes in testing the boundaries of democracy have only been exceeded by the significant lack of repudiation by their respective societies. … ‘The answer lies not with the system but rather with the populace and its lack of adherence to advice proffered by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, “One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors”.’
As we proceed towards constitutional reform, the above analogy/metaphor needs to be addressed for it takes an approach, usually supported by the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), that very little is wrong with the political system. All that is required is some tinkering: the fault lies in the politicians who rig elections, merely want power and all such tripe.
It is true the major problem is that Guyana does not have a strong system of repudiation to prevent politicians from willy-nilly breaking the rules. And while the editor chose a good analogy in sports, since the intent is to demonstrate that the problem is not systemic, the sporting reality is extensively distorted.
Since one needs to organise and continuously practice, in which reasonably organised game is the physical environment in which the game must be played ‘of no consequence?’ In which game are players allowed to skirt the tenets and rules and gain success by a ‘lack of repudiation by their respective authorities?’
The answer is none: indeed, systemic changes to deal with rule-breaking and other abuses are regularly made by the authorities to force the sport to be played in a manner that accords with their perception of what it should be. The authorities do not sit on their laurels and bemoan the players’ ‘lack of adherence’ to the advice of some philosopher! Similarly, there is a need for fundamental systemic governance reforms in Guyana.
In considering the question of nationality and representative democratic government since 1861, Johns Stuart Mill was perhaps the first to identify the issue. In a nutshell: ‘The question of government ought to be decided by the governed. But, when a people are ripe for free institutions, there is still a more vital consideration. Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow feeling, … the united public opinion necessary to the working of a representative government cannot exist.’
The problem is not that the population does not participate sufficiently in politics; it is with how it participates. On political matters, Guyana does not have a meaningful ‘united public opinion’. It has an Indian public opinion and an African public opinion, with all that that entails for national political management, e.g. weak accountability of the resultant ethnic governments and stultification of the right of ethnic groups to self-government. Mill may have been the first to recognize the problem and in the 1950s, Sir Arthur Lewis was the first to identify the solution in forms of shared, inclusive governance.
Since then, however, the field has flourished, with one author concluding that: ‘To the extent that the constitutional arrangements ignore this (ethnic) development tension, alienation, disturbances, and underdevelopment result. … Power sharing becomes inevitable because of the logic of political cleavage in competitive democracies.’ (The Theory and Practice of Ethnic Politics: How What We Know about Ethnic Identity Can Make Democratic Theory Better).
The notion that Guyanese do not participate sufficiently in the political process is laughable. The numbers associated with Guyanese elections are extremely suspect, but judging by participation in national elections, with a turnout rate of 71.3% in 2015 in relation to a global average of 66%; Barbados 69% in 2018, Jamaica 48.31% in 2016 and Trinidad and Tobago 66.8% in 2015, Guyana is more than well placed. And this says nothing of its population’s legendary daily overindulgence in political discourse.
To prevent us focusing on this systemic problem, the editorial wants us to believe that the working of social systems depends exclusively upon human moral will. Recognition of Karl Marx’s observation that ‘Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past’ is absent. In this sense there is a dearth of sociological understanding.
For example, to help to bolster its position the editorial said about Donald Trump: ‘The Republican Party’s leaders have seemingly yielded the reins of control of their organization to his boorish personality and skittish behaviour.’ This is at best only a small part of the truth. One columnist in The Washing Post claimed that: ‘The alliance between Republicans and White Americans is by far the most important and problematic dynamic in American politics today’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ 2022/10/13/)
What the Republic leadership has yielded to is the fact that increasing levels of structural change – globalisation, migration, etc. – have resulted in about the 40% of overwhelmingly white voters that the party cultivated by all manner of racist and other unprogressive behaviour and signals, have now turned to Trump as a more radical expression of that approach. To a significant extent, the Trumpism that now threatens their personal and general hold on power is their own creation!
From the standpoint of the liberal democratic theory, Guyana is a classic generic case of structural political malformation. Today, others, such as the USA, are developing such deformities but will more likely successfully deal with them because their political institutions – structures and superstructures – are far more politically inclusive and participative.
Believing that by all kinds of jiggery-pokery it has a ‘hold’ on the unreformed electoral system, the PPP does not want the fundamental political changes Guyana requires to become a functioning liberal democratic state. I am yet to fathom what the Opposition wants, but if the present reform process does not deal with the fundamental issue of Guyana not having a united public opinion, it will not solve the major political problem that faces the country.
