Building democracy after 1992

Oct 25, 2008 Freddie Kissoon

---

A friend from UG passed on the Kaieteur News editorial of October 6 and asked me how come I failed to confront the main points in it. I do read the editorials of the two independent dailies. However, I can’t remember digesting that item in KN of that date. I guess you do bypass a few things in life.
Entitled, “Democracy in Guyana,” this article, though well laid out with good intention about how Guyana can build on what happened after 1992, is theoretically flawed. The reason for this is because it treats democracy without a context. Simply put, one cannot discuss the state of democracy without contextualizing it.
Democracy exists at different levels depending on which country you have under the microscope. Let us quote from the editorial, then, we can examine its intellectual and conceptual limitations.
“…in 1992, we were at a minimum, only at the beginning of a transition of a democracy – defined by whatever criteria that they may find desirable and as not being present now in their estimation.
In other words, that since what preceded 1992 was not a democracy; the substantive aspects of democracy would have to be constructed afterwards.
The question, which is studiously evaded by the critics, then arises as to who — whether individuals or institutions or both — was to be responsible for that construction of substantive democracy in Guyana. The premise of the critics is that this is the sole responsibility of the government of the day.”
Although the writer does not appear to be downplaying the role of the state in building democracy after dictatorship goes, he/she seems to argue from the conceptual basis rather than particularizing, thus failing to put the emphasis on the role of the state. This is where the premise of the argument falls down.
The writer fails to mention that in discussing who is to build democracy in Guyana, we are talking about a poor, post-colonial state. Democracy cannot be carved out the same way it was in Europe after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire. The context is different.
It is outside the scope of a newspaper article to discuss the development of democracy in Europe and the role of the state in the shape of that process then make a comparison with the post-colonial world. Such an endeavour is best articulated in an academic forum.
What needs to be outlined is that the nature of the state is important when one talks about shaping democracy. We can turn to the seminal theory of Hamza Alavi, a Pakistani political theorist who pointed to the concept of the “Overdeveloped State.”
According to Alavi, when the new rulers got independence from the mother country, they inherited a territory with a large and extensive state apparatus. This was necessary during the colonial administration.
On the other hand, Greek theorist, Nicos Poulantzas polemicises on the relative autonomy of the state in advanced, industrial democracies. What we have here, then, is a strong, powerful state as obtains in the Third World and a Gramscian state in the rich countries of the West that does not necessary have a concentration of power.
In theorizing, then, one cannot speak conceptually of constructing democracy. One has to offer the context. A good place to start is the memoirs of Bill Clinton. Clinton admirably shows the limitation of presidential power.
Civil society, the capitalist class and the media in the U.S. are so developed and powerful that they compete with the presidency for both power and influence. The president is severely hamstrung in his use of both legal and covert power in the American environment.
How this came about will take us back to medieval Europe and the evolution of democracy. Space limitation will not allow this.
Here is a graphic example as to why the government had to be the main builder of democracy after 1992 in Guyana.
The New York Times does not depend on the American Government for one cent. The U.S. Government does not offer a line of financial support to the New York Times. In Guyana, because the capitalist class is severely weak, a newspaper like the Stabroek News probably receives a tidy sum from the state through government advertisements.
The Government knows this, thus the withdrawal of placements from the state over an eighteen-month period hurt the newspaper deeply. After free and fair elections came in 1992, the state was an “overdeveloped” one.
If democracy was to come, the government had to take the lead. It did not, thus the tragic regression of freedoms under the post-1992 PPP regime.
The state in Guyana is slightly thinner than before 1992 but it is still feared by the population.

---

---