Changes in the political behaviour of a people will occur only after there have been changes in their moral and cultural consciousness.
Guyanese have no more than a passing acquaintance with democratic governance. Neither the Dutch founders of Guyana between 1621 and 1803, nor the British between 1803 and 1966 practiced democracy. The PNC wasted its opportunity after Guyana was given “independence” under its stewardship and they proceeded to institute a dictatorship from 1966 to 1992, when they were ousted “democratically” from office by the PPP. Everyone assumed that Guyana embarked on its democratic transition along with so many other countries of that era. One prominent scholar pointed out that the world was in the midst of another “democratic wave”; but that wave seemed to have crashed on the shoals of the PNC after their return in 2015.
Back in 1992, the writer had cautioned: “the history of previous democratic waves should temper our euphoria somewhat. The transition process is not automatic – there are no irresistible democratic forces marching through history. At best, there may be a demonstrator effect. The process may also be reversible: democracy has proven to be a most delicate plant to nurture, especially in the inhospitable soil of authoritarian structures. The struggle of the people and the vision of their leaders have always defined the trajectory and range of the democratic transition. Guyana will be no exception.”
We should note that from the origin of the democratic idea in classical Athens, through the struggles against the crown in England, France and the US, democracy was constantly expanded and altered by its practitioners as it inevitably confronted new exigencies. Democracy was never static. We in Guyana, who want democracy for our country today, should do no less.
There are undoubtedly countless issues that democracy will have to grapple with; but the most important one will be to finally deal with the implications of the racial divisions in our society. Now, we Guyanese are not unique— all societies have divisions. One universal division is economic class, while other divisions are based on race, culture, ethnicity, religion, and settlement patterns (urban-rural) and these have all proven to be very resilient. These categories are not mutually exclusive and may occur in varying combinations. In Guyana, for instance, race and ethnicity coincide and are used synonymously. The nature of the political competition and the political culture depend, to a large extent, on which of the cleavages emerge as the most salient, and this outcome, in turn, hinges on various societal contingencies: structural/economic, historical, political and psychological. We cannot undo these contingencies – we have to work with them.
Race/ethnicity, in Guyana, transcends class as the dominant cleavage and suffuses politics as well as most other social interactions. It defines the local political culture. The problem that societal divisions poses to democracy is that when the latter, meaning “rule by the people”, is sought to be implemented, two questions arise: First, who are the “people”? The second question is, how are “the people” to rule?
The “people” are now all citizens over 18 and are to rule via a majoritarian representative Government. The fly in the ointment in all of this, of course, was why would the minority go along with the majority, in this system – especially when each are from different seemingly unchanging ethnic blocs? The answer by the theorist was that the minority knew that it always had the opportunity of becoming the majority on any given issue – it just had to persuade enough folks that their stand on that issue was the right one. Every dog could have his day. This answer, however, only addressed an ideal situation, where everyone voted rationally according to his or her interest – unlike the case of Guyana.
But all is not lost. The recent visit of the Ghanaian President should remind us that their land is also torn by ethnic factionalism and voting – but since 1992, their Governments have been regularly alternating. Their “secret” is that a bloc of “swing votes” have developed, especially in their capital, Accra, and among their youths. Could it be that with no one ethnic group having an inbuilt absolute majority, we will emulate Ghana at the next polls?
