Guyana’s Parliament could promote national compromise, but only intensifies political divide – US Report

…says APNU/AFC’s legal appeals on election outcome does nothing to lessen ethnic division

A recent United States Agency for International Development (USAID) assessment on democracy, human rights, and governance in Guyana has highlighted deep flaws in a number of systems and institutions, which need to be addressed in order to build a better society for all citizens.

“Guyana’s weak governing structures and the low professional capacity of public sector officials at all levels affect racial tensions and conflict, and therefore consensus-building. Ethnic rivalry, buttressed by weak institutions, continues to produce less than optimal development outcomes for Guyana,” contends the report, titled “Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance Assessment: Guyana”.
The assessment team conducted a robust desk review of articles and documents that reflect the most significant political and economic changes, donor priorities, and external drivers of change that have impacted Guyana in the period 2016-2021.
And the assessment found problems in all five elements of democracy, human rights, and governance. The most critical are in the areas of competition and political accountability, consensus and inclusion.

Political accountability
The USAID Report documents that political parties in Guyana have been organised along “ethnic lines” since before independence. “Indo-Guyanese have supported the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) party since 1950, while Afro-Guyanese have supported the People’s National Congress (PNC), the largest political party of the APNU/AFC coalition, since 1957,” the report detailed.
It also noted that the country’s proportional system for representation in the National Assembly often makes lawmakers more accountable to party leaders, rather than to constituents in their regions.
Further, the report contends that national consensus on critical development and economic issues seems “elusive due to the prolonged political instability that has widened the political and racial divide within Guyana”.
It was pointed out that although the two main political parties have a shared commitment to a democratic system, there is no clear consensus for necessary electoral and institutional reforms and stewardship of Guyana’s national wealth.
“The lack of political agreement regarding policy priorities for economic opportunities and social benefits perpetuates longstanding disparities in the country,” the report noted.
It was further observed that, in Guyana, access to social and economic resources has varied, depending on which political party is dominant in the political cycle.
“The parties derive their support from distinct ethnic blocks of voters, which often pits Indo-Guyanese against African Guyanese. This political favouritism towards one ethnic group is especially worrisome as Guyana is on the cusp of unprecedented economic transformation,” the assessment found.
Additionally, it was noted that vulnerable populations, rural and hinterland residents, along with the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) population, have been excluded from meaningful engagement in political life and policymaking.
Notwithstanding the findings, incumbent President Dr Irfaan Ali has, time and again, committed that the ruling PPP/C Administration represents a Government for all, and that there would be no discrimination in programmes and policies being rolled out. This is already evident in a number of initiatives, such as the $25,000 ‘Because We Care’ education cash grants per child in both the public and private school systems, the annual scholarships for citizens, access to housing and housing initiatives in all regions of the country, among other things.
Further, President Ali – upon his assumption to office in August 2020 – held widespread consultations with political players, civil society groups, religious organisations, and the Private Sector. These engagements are continued from time to time.

National Assembly
Zoning in on the role of the National Assembly in ironing out these issues, democracy, human rights, and governance, the USAID contends that it serves as a “a possible mechanism for initiating reform discussions and formalising power sharing”.
But, according to the report, the National Assembly has instead been “combative at best”.
“The 2020 parliamentary sessions commenced with Members of Parliament (MPs) trading verbal personal insults rather than engaging in civilised discourse on matters of national importance. Parliamentary decision-making could promote consensus building and compromise, but it only exacerbates the political divide,” the report outlined.
The United Nations, in a statement quoted in the report, succinctly captured the role of Parliament in contributing to consensus in Guyana, “…Parliament is the supreme institution of citizen representation. When the margin between the Government and the Opposition is one or two seats, parliamentary decision-making should entail consensus-building and compromise, to be inclusive of all Guyanese citizens.”
The report also highlights that, in Guyana’s parliamentary system, lawmakers are accountable to party leaders rather than to constituents in their regions.
“In this electoral system, it is difficult to forge inclusive policies that are in the national interest. The parties compete in a mixed electoral system that combines proportional representation with first-past-the-post voting: forty of the National Assembly’s 65 seats are elected by proportional representation in a single nationwide district, the remaining 25 are elected by proportional representation at the regional constituency level, and the President is the nominee of the party or electoral coalition with the most overall votes; note that it is possible that the President could be of a different party than the Government, which occurred between 2011-2015.”
In recent memory, one of the most notorious events to have unfolded in the National Assembly – currently being held at the Arthur Chung Conference Centre due to the pandemic – is the Opposiiton’s “mace grab” of December 29, 2021, whereby Opposition Parliamentarians reportedly assaulted parliamentary staff and committed other offences in a bid to stop the passage of the Natural Resource Fund Act. This Act was eventually passed and assented to law by the Guyanese Head of State.

Legal Challenges
The report also documented the events of the 2020 General and Regional Elections, noting that “the twenty-month continuation of a caretaker Government (since the no confidence motion of December 2018) exposed the country’s democratic and institutional weaknesses.”
Making note of the delays in the election results being declared and the role of the international community in defending democracy in Guyana, the USAID Report contended that “the defeated APNU+AFC coalition continues its legal appeals regarding the election outcome, which does nothing to lessen the polarisation of the ethnically based political parties.”
It was only recently that Aubrey Norton, Leader of the PNC – the largest party in the APNU+AFC coalition – declared that his party’s recognition of the Government hinges on the outcome of the party’s election petitions.
Meanwhile, the report also found that there is not a modern and sizeable civil society active in Guyana that can contribute to national reconciliation. (G11)