In the three centuries of development of Liberal Democracy since the 18th century European Enlightenment, there has been a sustained debate about the relative importance of “outcome” versus “process” in that form of governance; which gradually became the most widespread, but which is now facing challenges.
The outcome of democratic governance was described succinctly by US President Abraham Lincoln as “rule of the people; by the people and for the people”. It is now accepted as inextricably linked with the processes that undergird it, and which are mediated through various institutions, each linked with one or more values of democracy. The debate echoes, to a great extent, the older and more philosophical one of the inseparability between ends and means in human life.
In Guyana today, however, after only three years of rule by the PNC-led APNU/AFC coalition Government, there is clearly a sustained campaign led by President David Granger to control the outcome of the democratic process by subverting the institutions that sustain the latter. In fact, the coalition Government has displayed a total contempt for democratic institutions. Take, for instance, the “rule by the people” outcome. One of its foundational cornerstone is the “separation of powers” doctrine, which is supposed to describe the existential relationship between the three institutions that exercise the powers of the state on behalf of the people: the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.
Because of the peculiarity of our particular form of “parliamentary government” — which was introduced by the founder-leader of the PNC, Forbes Burnham, in 1980 — the head of the Executive does not sit in the Legislature, as in Britain; but, as a “president” wielding enormous powers, he is represented in the Legislature by a Prime Minister; and through the Whip system, has total control of the legislature – unlike, for instance, the president of the US. In this scenario, there is no separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislature, and, as such, the only hope for a democratic outcome in the governance of Guyana lies in the independence of the Judiciary.
The PNC-led APNU/AFC regime, however, from the beginning of its term of office, has launched a sustained attack on the independence of the Judiciary, which began with virulent attacks by Attorney General Basil Williams, who is the legal officer of the Government. The AG issued what was considered an implied threat against Justice Franklyn Holder, which forced the latter to vacate his Bench. He also attacked then sitting Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Carl Singh, which caused the Guyana Bar Association (GBA) to denounce and remind him that “the Judiciary must be protected when actions occur that seek to destroy, penetrate, and even climb over the wall of judicial independence.”
But the Government’s total instrumental view of the law, and its willingness to subvert the decisions of the Judiciary were exposed by no other than President Granger when he referred to a decision by the Chief Justice as her “perception” and said he is entitled to his. And it was on this latter “perception” that he acted when unilaterally appointing ex-Justice James Patterson as Chairman of GECOM.
Not coincidentally, that particular democratic institution is meant to uphold “rule of the people”. In each of his “casting” votes since, Patterson has taken the side of the Government’s Commissioners. One of those decisions has since been taken to the Ethnic Relations Commission, which has only been recently constituted, three years late. But in terms of subverting the Judiciary, President Granger’s insistence on appointing an ex-GDF officer now on the Belize Bench as the next Chancellor of the Judiciary, while bypassing the incumbent without any good reason offered, shows that he is willing to even “pack” the Court to ensure the outcome of the latter’s decisions are in his favour.
The President’s refusal to subject himself to questioning from the media – a crucial institution of democratic governance – is another indicia of his Government’s insistence on controlling, and thus subverting, outcomes of institutions.
