Is Guyana working to strengthen electoral democracy?

Dear Editor,
Someone by the name of Edward Burrowes says that Guyana has been moving since 2018 towards “autocratisation” (a political situation in which power becomes highly concentrated in one person, who also moves to suppress dissent). To support his position, he cites a 2023 report prepared by the Gothenburg v-Dem Institute (V-Dem), which identifies four regime types based on certain characteristics (such as freedom of expression, fair and free elections, consultation, inclusivity, press censorship, etc.).
The regime types are: (1) Liberal Democracy (e.g., Barbados, UK, USA); (2) Electoral Democracy (e.g., Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago); (3) Electoral Autocracy (e.g., Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines); and (4) Closed Autocracy (e.g., Quatar, Syria, Iran).
With respect to a central issue: freedom of speech/ expression, contrary to the views of some critics, the PPPC Government insists that it is not averse to criticism, but reserves the right to defend Government policies, programmes and actions that have been mischaracterised.
Notwithstanding, the V-Dem report suggests that Guyana has lost some ground as an Electoral Democracy. The lower scores and rankings that Guyana was given on the 6 metrics, namely Liberal Democracy, Electoral Democracy, Liberal Components, Egalitarian Components, Participatory Components, and Deliberative Components, were partly attributable to the APNU+AFC’s refusal to step down from power following the No Confidence Motion against them in 2018, as well as their failure to accept defeat; and stepping down only after 5 months of imbroglio following the declaration of the 2020 elections’ results. It would take time to restore the democratic credentials of Guyana from these and other impasse, like the failure to appoint a Chief Justice and a Chancellor of the Judiciary.
Both the PPPC Government and the APNU+AFC Opposition proclaim that they extol the virtues of democratic values and institutions. While the Guyana Constitution is still one of the best in the Caribbean (according to Attorney General Anil Nandlall), both parties have nevertheless agreed, after a hiatus, to promulgate constitutional reform through a participatory and consultative process. This process constitutes an important democratic move.
Given this and many other advances (e.g. 39 % of MPs are women while 12% are Amerindians) in democracy building in Guyana, I am perplexed with the award of higher scores and rankings to Jamaica, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, relative to the lower scores and rankings for Guyana, particularly for the Participatory and Deliberative Metrics.
For the Participatory Metric, Jamaica scored 0.59 (R55), Suriname 0.57 (R64), Trinidad and Tobago scored 0.58 (R62), and Guyana scored 0.51 (R101). For the Deliberative Metrics, Jamaica scored 0.81 (R53), Suriname 0.57 (R60), Trinidad and Tobago 0.93 (R13), and Guyana 0.37 (R138). (A perfect score is 1.0, R means Rank among 179 countries).
My research has found that the scores and rankings do not match reality. The PPPC Government visits every village or community every week, listens to citizens’ problems, and takes appropriate action to fix those problems based on rational judgment. The PPPC Manifesto, which is a product of intensive consultation and interaction with people all over the country, already has an implementation rate of 95%. The PPPC have gone beyond the manifesto promises to execute additional projects, such as the construction of 2,887 (1,240 completed) houses for low and moderate income and professional families, and have built and rehabilitated hundreds of miles of community and ‘farm to market’ roads.
I reached out to Gothenburg V-Dem Institute to seek clarification, particularly on the methodology utilised in compiling the 6 Metrics. Their response is interesting. For every country, they identify 5 experts for each Metric. This means therefore that they gather information on Guyana from 30 experts. V-Dem reports that 2/3 (or 20) of the experts are residents. I asked if they could name these experts, and they responded: “We do not reveal the identity of our Country Experts, and preserve Country Expert confidentiality according to a strict policy.”
I wrote them again and asserted that an institute that reports on democracy and good governance, as well as deviations from these, is itself not necessarily transparent by its refusal to disclose the names of experts! Why confidentiality? The data that experts provide are not official secrets, or matters of national security value; they are to measure the strength of democracy and the movement towards autocracy.
Mr Burrowes has latched onto the findings of this report, and accuses the PPPC Government of trying to stifle the emergence of 3rd parties and freedom of expression. Referring to President Ali and Vice President Jagdeo’s speeches at Babu John, he wrongly claims how they “threatened anyone thinking of forming a political party.” He continues to make misleading statements, such as: “Only a small percentage of the population has been enjoying the newly found oil wealth. Close friends, family members, and those with the right religious connection are the main beneficiaries of contracts in the hundreds of billions of dollars.”
The PPPC Government has built and rehabilitated thousands of miles of roads, highways, numerous bridges (2024 Budget Speech. 4.99-4.100); constructed 9 secondary schools, and 13 are to be built in 2024 plus 6 primary schools; 6 regional and one specialty hospital would be constructed, and others upgraded; old age pension has been substantially increased, as have disability benefits and cash grants to school children; 30,355 house lots have been allocated; 21,442 GOAL scholarships have been awarded; over 13,000 part-time jobs have been created to alleviate unemployment and poverty; and these are only some of the benefits. How could these visible accomplishments escape the scrutiny of any critic? The trouble is that misleading statements by Burrowes and others could find their way via “experts” into the V-Dem repository.
The Guyanese “experts” who provide information to V-Dem must identify themselves, in the interest of transparency and accountability. I hope they do not view themselves as secret agents using carefully scripted information to derail the democratic path that the country is pursuing!

Sincerely,
Dr Tara Singh