No backsliding from democracy

Aug 09, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Evil forces constantly harangue anything that is good; all the good that comes out of the PPP/C Administration is spun as something bad; this is evil spin when good is presented as evil; anything evil sees everything as evil. But the PPP/C Government’s good has always outmatched the reach of this evil. Evil forces have been hard at work from this Government’s initiation in1992.
Today, dressed in the guise of respectability, these same forces present themselves as the people’s representatives; twisting truth, not articulating the norms of objectivity and fundamental fairness.
These really are attacks on the people; onslaughts that sacrifice other citizens’ rights and the public good to the pursuit of narrow political self-interests; a factionalism detrimental to democratic survival.

Vilifications include: Guyana is not free; Guyana is no democracy; Guyana has little economic development; Guyana marginalises Africans; etc.
Today, I want to address the first two and determine whether this spin can backslide Guyana’s democracy to autocracy. Any exposition on freedom and democracy requires unearthing the PNC’s legacy of repression.
Transition to democracy came in 1992 after 24 years of authoritarianism; when no institution made the government accountable to its people; an age of coercion where PNC rulers saw no limits to their authority and regulated all social life.

Distinguished Professsor Clive Thomas in an interview in 2000 (interview by Dianne Feeley and David Finkel) described the PNC regime thus: “The truth however, is that this regime had been installed in power through a colonial maneuver with the electoral system before Independence in 1966, and maintained itself in power for nearly three decades through the systematic rigging of national elections and the employment of force and intimidation against all opposition to it.”
During these 24 years, the National Security Act suspended the right to Habeas Corpus; and enabled the PNC regime to restrict and detain Guyanese without trial for an indefinite period.
Part II of the National Security Act was reenacted in 1977 to indefinitely detain Guyanese without bail and trial. Some of today’s broadcasters would not have survived the wrath of the Security law in those years!
The fact of the matter is that today, with no broadcasting law and little self-monitoring, media distortions are having a field day! This is a paradox of freedom! Grand media distortions can happen amid the presence of fundamental human rights.

The PPP/C Government reinstated human rights in this country; it has a historic track record since 1953 of promoting equality before the law for all persons; and making discrimination against all people unlawful through the Prevention of Discrimination Act 1997; and this Administration endorsed the Optional Protocol on the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the previous PNC regime was not a signatory.
In fact, the international-based Freedom House has deemed Guyana ‘free’ with regard to political rights and civil liberties since 1993. Guyana is free.
‘Guyana is not a democracy’ is another unproven onslaught on the integrity of this Administration. Let’s explore this critique.
Democracy is more than casting ballots at election times. Karl (1990) refers to this as a ‘fallacy of electoralism’. Goldstone et al (2005) in their study of transitions to and from democracy analysed about 1,300 political, demographic, economic, social, and environmental variables for all countries globally with populations greater than 500,000 through 1955-2003.

They concluded that democracy has to do with ‘election competitiveness’ and ‘inclusiveness’; and democracy can be measured through (1) and (2): (1) executive recruitment – how is the President elected and the frequency and competitiveness of elections? Note the limits on the President through Articles 90, 180, and 182 of the Guyana Constitution. The issue here is whether elections are free and have at least two parties contesting elections. Note that the 1992, 1997, and 2001 elections were free, fair, and transparent, and endorsed by international observers; note, too, the independent Guyana Elections Commission. (2) Competitiveness of political participation – the issue here is whether this Government limits political participation.
More countries today are less of a democracy not because of the quality of their elections, but more because of the quality of their political participation. Among other factors, absence of a Party from Parliament reduces quality participation.

Through 2001-2006, the PNC withdrew from Parliament as follows: March 25 – December 5, 2002; March 28, 2003 – April 14, 2003; March 19, 2004 – August 5, 2004; and November 22 – November 29, 2004. Almost two years of withdrawal delayed the processing and establishment of constitutional commissions and committee work in Parliament, negatively affecting the quality of PNC’s political participation.
A sample of evolving political inclusiveness of the PNCR and other parliamentary parties is discerned through the following: (1) Jagdeo-Hoyte Joint Committees; (2) Constitutional Amendments creating: the Commissions; Parliamentary Standing Committee for constitutional reform; Parliamentary Sectoral Committees, (3) responsible opposition; and (4) membership on oversight committees and state boards. Government does not limit political participation.

Now what is the risk of Guyana’s democracy backsliding to autocracy? Goldstone and others found that the risk is greater after 2 years, remaining until a democracy reaches age 15; though hardly backsliding after age 15. Only seven backslides in democracies aged over 15 occurred through 1955-2003: Brazil in 1964, Peru 1968, Philippines 1972, Chile 1973, Uruguay 1973, Fiji 1987, and Gambia 1994. Goldstone and others argued that elections in young democracies are vulnerable to backsliding, especially to the second election; and that democracies in transition frequently have oppositions tottered by inadequate financing and mobilizational capacity.

They explained that elections force players to show whether they are willing to play with the new democratic rules. Democratic norms and practices are so strong today in Guyana that we are on the threshold of consolidation. But weak opposition elements, grounded in an undemocratic culture, may fear the new dispensation would disadvantage them in an electoral contest. Such opposition forces thrive under conditions of instability; and, therefore, a weakened democracy would present them with political opportunities; thus, some elements’ acrimonious and threatening response to the new democratic culture; unsurprising, as an electoral contest is at hand.
Prem Misir

---

---