Extending Democracy

Jan 14, 2011 Editorial

Democracy, in its application, is a somewhat protean method of governance. While this may be of some vexation to those that desire a fixed and unchanging social environment, it is the very quintessence of democracy’s success as the standard for the modern world. If the physical world, much less the social one, is in a constant state of flux, how could an arrangement that purports to invite the “informed consent” of its adherents for its legitimacy be otherwise disposed?
In its slow and stuttered march from its modern incarnation in Western Europe, democracy has grown in tandem with the ever-expanding notion of what it means to give full expression of the human potential. Was a time when only the nobles could choose their monarch; the burgeoning bourgeois soon demanded this privilege that was now defined as a “right”; followed by the masses – which for the longest while did not include half of the population – women! Only a recalcitrant fringe would even conceive of rolling back these gains: particularly in a country such as ours, that was born in shameful slavery that defined the antithesis of democracy and freedom.
But the expansion of democratic norms was not limited to the “whom”; it also incorporated the “how”. It had become pellucid by the mid 19th century that form had to follow function if the latter were not to be insidiously subverted. The secret ballot that was first introduced interestingly in the then British colony of Australia came about because it was recognised that a person’s consent in choosing their leaders could easily be swayed by external pressures. Possibly the pressure of one’s peers, but certainly from the ambitious that had no compunction in offering interchangeably the “carrot or the stick” to secure support at the polls.
The theory behind the innovation of the secret ballot was that if no one could tell with certainty what choice the voter made, those that would influence him in making what should be a matter of private conscience could never tell for sure. One could publicly agree with the crowd or take the inducement proffered, but still vote one’s conscience.
But even as democracy expanded in society, there remained a stubborn enclave that resisted: ironically, within the political parties that had evolved to extend democracy. This has been called “elitist” democracy, in that the ordinary voter is presented with candidates for leadership, chosen from a small, self-perpetuating strata or group through fundamentally non-democratic rules. A second round of struggle, which continues into the present, was initiated to overcome this truncating of the democratic imperative.
As we have stressed, ours is a very young and fledgling democracy. It is not surprising that we are not at the top of the curve of democratic practices. It is to our credit that we have re-instituted “free and fair” elections since 1992. “Free” because each voter is free to vote according to his/her conscience and to have that choice matter. The same, however, cannot be said of the process by which the available choices for leaders are made by our political parties. But most gratifyingly we are witnessing some pressures for change in the latter institutions.
The PNC has embarked on a public competitive process (within their membership) for choosing their next presidential candidate. Over in the PPP, there have been three public positions on the expansion of inter-party democracy in choosing their presidential candidate. The first is that the choice be made by their membership at a Congress and secondly – and more modestly – that there be at least a secret ballot by the leadership committees to make the choice. These were made by two contenders, respectively, Messrs Nagamootoo and Ramkarran. The third, articulated by the President, is for an open vote by the Committees – on the contrarian contention that secret balloting is susceptible to subversion to pressure. The key figure of the general secretary has signalled his stand by discounting the possibility of “inhibiting influences” in open balloting in his party. It is our position that the march of democracy must continue. The acceptance of secret balloting, while a small first step in the leadership councils of the PPP, can be a large one for all Guyanese.

Latest News

Extending Democracy

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 11th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Guyana Beverage Inc. on board with Petra to host 8th Annual Girls U11...

GFF launches NAMILCO/Maid Marian Wheat Up...

Semi’s bowls off tomorrow with...

NO SURPRISE!!

More support for Project “Cricket Gear for...

Guyana to participate at 2024 FIBA 3×3...

Features/Columnists

Poor Power Planning (PPP)

Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all

A Trump victory and me

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Extending Democracy

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 11th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]