For a New Political Culture

Oct 25, 2009 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

In 1990, I issued the paper, “For a New Political Culture”, that was to become the basis of the ROAR program a decade later. I noted: “Guyana, throughout its history, has been subjected to only one type of political order – the rule of superior force. The present political culture, which promotes an adversarial form of politics, is an outgrowth of that order: groups constantly manoeuvring to seize control of the state using tactics and a vocabulary very reminiscent of war. The rules of the political warfare, however, break down in divided societies as “victors” subjugate “defeated” adversaries. The other type of political order, the politics of consensus and cooperation has never been tried in Guyana. This new vision of politics must be inculcated in society, a vision which stresses links rather than cleavages, cooperation rather than competition, bargaining rather than conflict. This new political culture will only be accepted when all, especially the elites, share a minimum consensus on goals and values. Changes must begin simultaneously at the top and at the bottom, for it is here that respectively, strategies are formed and followers are mobilized.

The political parties were mirror images of each other – born as they were, from the same womb. It was a matter of tit for tat – no holds barred. The rhetoric that accompanied the political struggles was comparably incendiary. Polemics became the order of the day – not your ordinary garden-variety polemics: accusations of murder, rape, arson, bribery, genocide (economic and otherwise) and sexual perversities have become the order of the day. In my recent riposte to Malcolm Harripaul, I used the phrase, “cussing out”, to which he objected, to categorise this extreme polemics. While I do not believe that ROAR ever descended to the gutter level, I am sure we did our share – even though we had promised “a new political culture”. That is the problem of “fighting fire with fire” – heat becomes acceptable.
Political analyses should suggest instrumental actions, not feel-good affects. The extreme polemical approach has failed: how could we build “bargaining” out of “conflict”? Last year, in a discussion on “dictatorships”, I analysed the PPP from the criterion of “control”.
Regarding the question on ideology posed by Malcolm, I noted: “While the PPP has not stressed its still official Marxism-Leninism ideology, it has retained its principle of democratic centralism that demands that all directives must come from the top…The PPP plays hardball politics (as ROAR knows to its cost) but political parties have been allowed to compete effectively – if not always fairly.”

I concluded: “I do not believe that the PPP to suddenly change either its modus operandi or its concept of power: change will have to be engendered through opposition effectiveness. They, however, continue to operate in a manner that ignores the realities of our country and end up ensuring the PPP’s continued rule.”
On the specifics as to who did what and to whom, we can hurl accusations till the cows come home but it will not move us closer. I have repeated our early call for a Peace and Reconciliation Commission in Guyana – only this process may help us bring closure to our rancorous past. In my days on the opposition benches, I discovered, as the rest of the country has now, that the PNC is not monolithic – and neither is the PPP. I believe that in the interstices of such fractures, progress can be engendered – but we will have to call a truce in our internecine warfare.
Comparing some actions of the post-1992 PPP regime with some of My Hoyte’s (1985-1992), Malcolm asks, “How different is this from the Burnham era?” Let us stipulate, for argument’s sake, that all of Malcolm’s claims are valid and the answer is, “No different.”
My point, however, is that by committing a fallacy of composition – conflating the part with the whole – we are missing the even greater inherent possibilities of change in the present. Apart from acting in a dictatorial manner, the Burnhamite regime was an actual dictatorship based on rigged elections. Because of no possibility of changing the dictatorial actions through the ballot, citizens had no recourse but to seek more extreme means. This is not the case today.

No matter how far the PPP has strayed from any version of substantive democracy – and in my estimation, they certainly have from ROAR’s – we have the option of free and fair elections to change the status quo. And this, in my estimation, is what the opposition should be focusing on. The question then becomes, “How can the opposition make itself into a viable alternative option to the PPP, which has been winning those elections.” And we can further stipulate, “Even in the face of its authoritarian actions.”
The opposition has to ask, “Why is it that the PPP has been able to cobble together a majority and not us – even now in a nation of minorities?” Calling the people that still support the PPP “fools” does help their position. I have alluded to the imperative of most persons to conserve their cognitive structures – this is especially pronounced in the primarily rural PPP voter. There will have to be another platform created for them to move onto before they will ever consider leaving their old one. I have spoken about the heuristics or shortcuts that they have developed that influence their political decision making. Have the opposition created those alternative platforms that address the premises of their heuristics – especially the one on physical security?

I do not think so. Take the present “united opposition”, joined by the GHRA and some other bodies that are calling for an enquiry into alleged links between “death squads” and the government. Why have they not joined such calls with one inquiring into the prior violence that emanated from the epicentre in Buxton that was inspired by “political sophisticates” from outside the village? Can one blame the typical PPP supporter for suspecting that the opposition is being more than a little disingenuous about taking national positions?
Then there’s the present boycott of Parliament. How does this further the wider cause of democracy or the more focused one of weaning voters away from the PPP? Take the four Sectoral Committees in Parliament that were introduced after 2000. Their remits cover the entire gamut of governmental activities and at any time two of them are chaired by the opposition. In the present imbroglios in sugar, rice, bauxite etc. the subject Ministers or their staff could have been summoned (in the presence of the media) and grilled. But it would appear that the opposition would rather play to the gallery and carp about “dictatorships”.

---

---