After commemorating our 56th anniversary of Independence, it is clear that we still have a way to go before we can enjoy a functioning democracy. If we needed a reminder, we saw it when the PNC Government refused to accept our constitutional device of testing a Parliamentary Democracy through a No Confidence Motion in 2018. And then, most egregiously, when they attempted to blatantly rig the 2020 elections. Apart from the observation by BR Ambedkar, crafter of the Indian Constitution, that bad men can always subvert a good constitution, there are also several structural conditions that we must take into account.
Our political culture and structures, with their undergirding philosophy and institutions, are an inheritance from the British. The premises of the system reflect the values of Liberalism, where the supposedly rational individual engages in a variety of roles, and belongs to a multitude of organisations and groups whose several interests are cross-cutting. The individual, in his political role as a voter, therefore makes a “rational” choice based on the position a given party takes on the issues before the electorate. Even if all voters do not conform to this ideal, there are enough who do to constitute a pool of “swing” votes, for which all parties compete. This situation creates a centripetal moderating effect, and the parties line up on a continuum on the issues. Since these swing voters may always change their minds, the majority is always careful to be respectful to the minority.
The party system in a divided society operates on totally different bases. Here, the individual is a member of groups which, instead of diffusing the cleavages, act to reinforce them. The “broker institutions” that each group participates in, and which represents him in the larger society, are also ethnically based trade unions, political parties, houses of worship etc. Affiliation is thus not based on the party’s position on a variety of issues, but generally on one issue: which group’s interest does the particular party represent. A dilemma is created when one group constitutes an absolute majority.
In Guyana, following the split of the nationalist, unified, multi-ethnic PPP in 1955, both of the major parties – the PPP and PNC – have attempted to bridge the ethnic chasm through various mechanisms. They both adopted, for instance, “socialism”, with its focus on working class unity, transcending race, which had no “socialist content”. But unfortunately, the policies and programmes of the PNC between 1964 and 1992 acted to alienate Indian Guyanese, since rigging elections meant excluding the party of their choice from office. During the PPP’s term of office between 1992 and 2013, even though objective measures such as several Household Income and Expenditure Surveys showed that the Government’s policies benefited all groups, the perception of discrimination by PNC supporters persisted.
One reason that militates against parties attempting to be multi-ethnic is the existence of “flank” parties or groups. These are found within every ethnic group, and take positions which can be considered extreme in favour of their given group. The “multi-ethnic” parties are forced to respond to their demands, so as not to lose support. Since the demands of these flank parties are invariably particularistic and in opposition to the “out” group, the major parties move away from the centre as they respond.
In Guyana, up to the 2011 elections, the PPP’s ethnic core base was larger than the PNC’s, but demographic changes due to differential ethnic emigration have altered that equation fundamentally. As the elections of that year, then 2015 and 2020 have shown, with neither party having an inbuilt ethnic majority. If they are rational, they should both appeal to swing voters if they want to win elections. From this perspective, APNU/AFC’s decision to shutter four sugar estates and fire mostly Indian Guyanese workers was not politically rational.
Today, there are several flank groups that are putting pressure on the new leader of the PNC/APNU to take ethnic rather than a national stance on issues. It would appear that want to torpedo the PNC’s chances of winning democratic elections.
