Democracy at its core is intended to represent the interest of the many; it is an institutional configuration that allows the people of a given country the freedom to elect leaders of their choice. Leaders who are then expected to govern in the interest of the masses.
According to political scientist Robert Dahl, the democratic ideal is based on two principles: “political participation and political contestation”. Political participation, he posits, requires that all the people who are eligible to vote can vote. Elections must be free, fair, and competitive.
“Political contestation”, however, refers to the ability of people to express their discontent through freedom of speech and the press. People should have the ability to meet and discuss their views on political issues without fear of persecution from the state.
Democratic regimes that promulgate electoral freedoms and contestation are referred to as liberal democracies.
Scholars have articulated that for democracy to remain a credible mode of institutional governance, it has to be perceived to be proliferating the interest of the people and the country. If it is perceived to be deleterious to the advancement of the populace and the development of the country, then eventually it will be discredited and another ideology of governance might take its place. One that might not necessarily promote the tenable rights and freedoms of free and fair elections and speech. One such ideology is “electoral dictatorship”, which some theorists have argued is exemplified in Russia.
In order for a liberal democracy to maintain in parlance and be the institutional mode of governance preferred, key provisions have to be met. Simply put, those include, but are certainly not limited to, the economic growth/wealth generation of the country and as one would surmise, good governance.
For liberal democracies to thrive good governance is an essential prerequisite for the maintenance of stability. While there is no exact definition that can be prescribed to good governance, as its connotations differ from country to country, it can be quantified as governance which promulgates human rights, economic prosperity for the masses and formidable provisions that ensure accountability through checks and balances.
Empirical research has proven that poor governance is often attributed to high instances of corruption. A practice which is no stranger to Guyana’s governance. Both the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the People’s Progressive Party/ Civic (PPP/C) have been accused of corruption on multiple occasions.
In fact, corruption is seen as a deterrent to democracy, since the citizenry over time becomes disillusioned with a government that appropriates resources that would have otherwise been used to increase their standard of living. This leads to resentment, with the populace no longer trusting its government. The legitimacy of the Government and, more fundamentally, the legitimacy of democracy are then questioned.
Political scholars have outlined that once the Government loses the trust of the populace, especially in liberal democracies, chaos ensues as the masses no longer have any reason to respect and obey the decrees, laws and judicial decisions that emerge from these core institutions.
Guyana is a democratic country that utilises a mixture of the Parliamentary and Mixed Systems of Governance. Research has shown that countries that were once colonised and transitioned to democracy through Independence tend to struggle before they find their equilibrium. Guyana just recently celebrated its 50th year as an independent country, but is still being plagued with pervasive instances of corruption from its governing bodies.
In fact, one can argue that the previous Administration, the PPP/C, which fared better with the economic and wealth-generating aspects of governance, lost the trust of the masses through pervasive allegations of corruption, which were being levied on their modus of governance. This might have been a factor that contributed to their loss at the General Elections of 2015.
Serious allegations of corruption are now being levied at this one-year-old APNU Administration. Infractions on the awarding of contracts leading to the perception of cronyism, authoritarian dispositions and high-handed behaviour on the part of key governing figures; flagrant disregard for the tendering process and lack of perceivable transparency are some of the concerns being raised.
Let us hope that the masses do not lose trust in their elected government and become disillusioned to the point where our liberal democracy becomes “illiberal”.
