Towards a new political culture: Shaping systemic democracy for substantive democracy

Nov 16, 2008 AFC Column

---

By Lin-Jay Harry-Voglezon

In following the American process of arriving at its next President, one would recognise Guyana as a primordial democracy. For instance, the quality of media investigations, range of reviews, interpretations, and quality of political activism reflect not only the level of intellectuality of the society but also the significant contributions of the American middle/professional classes to the maintenance of high-level values.
Further, the American media, not withstanding their ideological varieties and other interests, have not generally allowed political actors, within or without the media to traffic misinformation. Scrutiny is high. Compare that to what passes as journalism in Guyana. Political actors wreak havoc with lies and distortions since the media is inadequately investigative and challenging. The media, in several instances here, have even diluted if not hidden authentic evidence to protect advertising and other special interests. Channel 11 (NCN), for instance, functions as a Public Relations government outfit with those many disgusting and childish interviews of state officials, instead of putting the officials in a position to be accountable to the people.
The American level of democratic media development is substantially a product of its systemic democracy. That is the political structure, laws, rules, regulation, rewards, sanctions, and processes of decision making. Democracy is never finite in scope and content, but it is the quality of its structures and processes of making decisions and doing things that essentially shape its substance, the relative political culture, and quality of democratic minds. The minds in turn shape the political culture, structures and processes.
There are fundamental lessons to be learnt from American politics that could instruct a new political culture in Guyana. In shaping their systemic democracy the American politicians at independence recognized that neither a democratic nor republican system in its own right could have served their society well. They argued that the democratic system makes politicians employees of the people, accountable to them, and no lords of the society. Thus, from the Head of State to the ordinary man must be equal before the law. However, that system tends to allow the “reign of passion” rather than the “reign of reason”, to the extent that he who wins an election may not be wise enough for office. Thus American politicians integrated principles of Democracy and Republicanism in the construct of their system of governance. The security of tenure within the judicial system, the way that the system is structured and its personnel scrutinized before appointment, and its extent of insulation from the legislature and executive, are some of the best manifestations of Republicanism which requires a system of governance based on objective and rational standards, managed by objective and rational people.
We observe for instance that while democratic principles facilitated the thriving of white racist ideology and racial segregation, the principles of Republicanism became constraints and validated the dreams of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. And it is that validation that has given space for the likes of Barack Obama, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell to rise. It was adherence to those principles that checked the subversion of the State by Richard Nixon, induced his impeachment, and also nearly caused the impeachment of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. In essence, the admixture of Republican and Democratic principles in the formation of the American State has not only held the society together but prevents it from degenerating into sustainable extremes.
But in Guyana there is no such deep thinking involved in shaping the system of governance. So the aspirations of the Guyanese people as embodied singularly and collectively in its symbols of nationhood delivered at independence (its flag, coat of arms, pledge, anthem) remain frustrated. Why? Because historically the politics of Guyana has been: 1) predominantly the politics of class conflict; 2) competition for ethnic hegemony of the state; and 3) the fact that neither the constituency nor proportional representation system has ever served the nation well.
Firstly, the two major parties, PPP and PNC, in and out of office, in the name of working class revolution/domination have historically found ways of undermining the checks and balance tenets of governance. In office they have subverted the professionalism or independence of most state institutions by conveniently creating or circumventing laws, rules and regulations, and or by promoting weak and or vulnerable, or partisan personnel to high offices. Further, from among that body of personnel are persons selected for cross appointments in the party, state institutions and other organisations.
For example, a party executive may be appointed as a Permanent Secretary and/or to several Statutory Boards at the same time. And where there is resistance, at least attempts are made to destabilise, create parallel organisations, or vertically or horizontally merge offices. Recently, we witnessed attempts by the PPP administration to interlock the offices of Chief Justice and Chancellor in one person, by a method of administrative convolution.
Further, not withstanding legitimate questions about financial accountability within trade unions, the suspension of subventions for the Critchlow Labour College, the termination of the check-off system for the Public Service Union, and the factionalisation within the Trade Union Congress, are not as politically innocent as might appear. Neither is the occasional caustic party response to high level personnel of the Catholic and Anglican churches.
What is frightening if not dangerous about Guyana is that the environment has been producing an army of democratic pretenders, ambitious, opportunistic people, disingenuously socialised with a ‘sucking-up’ mentality. These pretenders are generally concerned with fraternising and striking deals for themselves, family and friends. When it comes to the parties, they are more concerned with their strategic positioning and advantages against each other rather than ensuring that political, social and economic space is development enabling.
The challenge therefore is for Guyanese to seriously discuss and arrive at a set of enforceable values and ethics which should inform a new political culture. We have to start with the political structures and processes. An admixture of the principles of republicanism, proportional and constituency representation seem appropriate. It is imperative that whatever is accepted must be based on an intent to 1) minimise ethnic cartelisation of State and its resources; 2) enable all forms of accountability; 3) generate efficiencies in time use; and 4) cultivate integrity.

---

---