The arguments over the basic rules of conducting the Local Government Elections (LGE), which have even escalated to court filings, augment the concerns first triggered by President David Granger’s unilateral appointment of the GECOM Chairman on the state of the democratic advance the “free and fair” elections of October 5, 1992 were supposed to have inaugurated twenty-six years ago. The advance was to have eventually ensured the “democracy” famously defined by Abraham Lincoln: “rule by the people for the people and of the people”.
From this definition, democracy can be seen as having two fundamental aspects – procedural and substantive. Elections are one fundamental facet of procedural democracy, and outline the “procedure” used for “the people” to choose their representatives, who would “rule” (“govern” in our modern terminology) on their behalf.
“Substantive democracy”, on the other hand, is what democracy is really all about, and it demands that “the people” be involved in the decisions that affect them as closely as possible: that is, to ensure “rule for and of the people”.
Even if there were procedural democracy in a country, but not substantive democracy, the form of rule would become “totalitarian democracy”, since the people are merely rubber stamping the unilateral actions of the rulers. In Guyana, however, we have not even gone off the blocks in the race for procedural democracy if the elections are compromised. We stand, therefore, in danger of replicating the essential totalitarian regime of the PNC between 1968 and 1992, when the elections were flagrantly manipulated and rigged to ensure the PNC massive “majorities” to run roughshod over the people.
Even if the results of the 2015 elections were not manipulated as claimed by the PPP, the substantive aspects of the PNC-led Government’s rule since then have been so traduced that, in concatenation with the abovementioned electoral gymnastics, the future of democracy is not only threatened, but totalitarian rule is in the air. Even if Guyana did not have a polity characterised by ethnic fissures which result in a two-party system that is ethnically exclusive, the PNC’s rule would still have excluded “the people”: they denied even their own supporters from being involved in decision-making.
The most blatant example is the PNC’s refusal to meet with their four coalition partners in the “A Partnership for National Unity” (APNU) on a regular basis, so that their input on decisions can be proffered. The President recently revealed that the Junior Ministries allocated to these parties are not involved in Cabinet meetings. His refusal to implement the terms of the Cummingsburg Accord, which APNU negotiated with the Alliance for Change (AFC) – especially the promise to increase the powers of the AFC-selected Prime Minister at the expense of the PNC-selected President – effectively vitiated the supporters of that party from being anything but spectators of the decision-making process.
But the impact of the lack of substantive democracy is exacerbated in our ethnically polarised country when the PNC-led Government refuses to hark to the principle of ‘audiatur et altera pars” – meaning: “listen to the other side”. The procedures and systems that were put in place by tradition and constitutional enactment to ensure Opposition’s input have been systematically stymied.
In the National Assembly, the PNC-appointed Speaker routinely gags the PPP MPs by denying them the opportunity to effectively respond to governmental proposals. The Constitutional stipulations to ensure the Opposition is consulted on major decisions, such as the appointment of the GECOM Chair, have been arrogated by the president as being his “prerogative”.
When the opposition Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) – with its support base ensuring it has only one seat less than the PNC-led coalition – are shut out from decisions such as the firing of 5700 sugar workers, a grave danger is posed to not only democracy, but, indeed, to the very fabric of a peaceful society. History has demonstrated that such scenarios have inevitably led to extreme actions as the excluded demand to be heard.
The international community should take notice.
