Ravi Dev Column – Elected Dictatorship?

Jul 13, 2008 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

Elder Eusi Kwayana, reacting recently to the government’s delay in approving thirty-nine EU funded micro-projects, declared, “Their refusal to explain their official action is also yet another example of the arrogance and disrespect that is their hallmark. I strongly disagree with those who claim that there cannot be an elected dictatorship. We know a dictatorship mainly by its behaviour, not by how it achieved office.”

I am one of those who have disagreed with the labelling of the present PPP government as an “elected dictatorship”. Mr Kwayana is one who strives to live his truth and his pronouncements are consequently not mere intellectual wordplay but insights distilled out of experience.

In recapitulating the reasons for my position, I am hoping that Mr Kwayana would elaborate on his summary dismissal of my dismissal. We can only gain from his insights.

My position was not a theoretical one but was proffered within a debate that was precipitated by concerns that the categorisation of the PPP government as a “dictatorship” – one even worse than the regime of Mr Burnham – served to justify the actions of those who had chosen violence to remove them. The professor, who deployed the assessment, responded that he intended it as only applying to certain (specified) manifestations – not tout court – and redefined the regime as “an elected dictatorship”.

Michael Ignatieff had made what I consider to be a very pertinent observation after he retired from academic life (Harvard) and entered politics (Canada): “In academic life, false ideas are merely false and useless ones can be fun to play with. In political life, false ideas can ruin the lives of millions and useless ones can waste precious resources.  An intellectual’s responsibility for his ideas is to follow their consequences wherever they may lead. A politician’s responsibility is to master those consequences and prevent them from doing harm.”

My rejection of the “elected dictatorship” label was based on the same fears as before: with the stress on the “dictatorship”, it justified ongoing confrontational and violent political tactics when, in my estimation, more peaceful fruitful avenues were available.

There was, I pointed out, the vehicle of free and fair elections.   And we arrive at Elder Kwayana’s formulation: “We know a dictatorship mainly by its behaviour, not by how it achieved office.”

Now, I agree that the PPP has been guilty of acting in an authoritarian or dictatorial fashion on occasions but that is a far cry from asserting that there is a dictatorship in place here and now – especially when there are no restraints on voting the rascals out of office.

Eusi, however, is possibly making another point – that a government could be voted into office (“achieved office”) and then subvert the institutions of democracy and install a regime (rules and institutions) that constitutes a dictatorship.

I agree that this is possible – Hitler was a famous example – but no one has pointed out the destruction of any democratic institution enshrined in our constitution, which permits changing the government as Hitler had done to his.

The term “elected/elective dictatorship” was applied rather famously by Lord Hailsham in 1976 to the labour government of the UK. But he himself noted the parameters of his usage: the unique nature of the British parliament: “… the powers of our own Parliament are absolute and unlimited.  And in this, we are almost alone. All other free nations impose limitations on their representative assemblies.”

Even though we refer to our system as a Westminster system, unlike the British we have a written constitution that is supreme over the Parliament, the President and all other institutions of the state.

The PPP government has to rule under the law of the Constitution and the last time I checked this constitution was still the one that the government and the joint opposition unanimously approved in 2000 after countrywide consultations and submissions to revise the Burnhamite Constitution that had been imposed by fiat, in the fashion of dictatorships.

The government is thus under the scrutiny and stricture of a Judiciary that can apply sanctions to it if it violates that most democratically constituted constitution.

What we have in Guyana is a problem of democracy that has been discussed ever since the term was analysed by Aristotle over two millennia ago – the ever-present danger of a “tyranny of the majority”.

With democracy becoming the most popular form of government in the last couple of hundred years, almost every political theorist has weighed in on the dangers of a majority once ensconced in office, running roughshod over the minority.

The fear of being voted out and becoming the minority usually tempers the majority’s excesses but where, as Madison warned, there are entrenched “factions” the dangers are more acute.

In our age, we have discovered that ethnic/racial factions, such as we have in Guyana, are the most intractable.

Under our present circumstance it does not matter which party or coalition of parties wins the election – the potential of “the tyranny of the majority” remains as a clear and present danger to peace and stability in our country.

Our entry into Guyanese politics has been precisely to highlight the dangerous consequences of our potential “tyranny of the majority”, – our twin Ethnic Security Dilemmas, which are precipitated by our particular constellation of demographics and power resources.

We have made numerous proposals, including a temporary shared executive – and a federalist constitution along the lines explicitly suggested by Madison to address the problem of factions and  “the tyranny of the majority” in the fledgling USA.

In the earlier debate, we pointed out that the definition of the present regime as a “dictatorship” – elected or otherwise – and the consequent inevitable demands for protest actions was not only strategically, but also tactically mistaken.

While the PPP has worked assiduously to secure the Indigenous People’s vote to maintain its majority in case their Indian support base fissures, the opposition’s confrontational tactics has worked to solidify that base.

Their latest demand for an enquiry into the activities of Roger Khan without tying it to one on the entire East Coast violence (as was done on the Gajraj affair in 2004) is also in that vein.

There are those that rail against Indians not leaving the PPP, but it is the opposition politicians who have to give them the assurance that the consequences of such a move would not be disastrous for them. To those who also rail against “pandering”, witness the moves of Mr Obama to secure a majority in the US.

Finally, I take the opportunity to express, as always, my deepest respect for Elder Kwayana and his work.

---

---