A political quagmire

Apr 27, 2014 News

---

By Dwijendra Rooplall
More often than not in Guyana we are seeing a display of indecisiveness, deadlock and partisanship by the political parties, which are supposed to be serving first and foremost, the vested interest of the population whom they represent.
However, what is really taking place can be seen as a far cry from what is the established norms and guidelines that political parties are supposed to follow.
For the most part, political parties have outlined functions that characterize them. Wilhelm Hofmeister and Karsten Grabow in their book ‘Political Parties Function and Organization in democratic societies posit that political parties  “ articulate and aggregate social interests: Parties express public expectations and demands of social groupings to the political system, they recruit political personnel and nurture future generations of politicians: They select persons and present them as candidates for elections, they develop political programmes: Parties integrate various interests into a general political project and transform it into a political programme, for which they campaign to receive the consent and support of a majority.”
Additionally, political parties “promote the political socialization and participation of citizens: Parties create a link between citizens and the political system; they enable political participation of individuals and groupings with the prospect of success.”
“They organise the government and participate in elections to occupy political charges. Normally in party democracies, a good part of government authorities arise from political parties.” (Ibid)
They also contribute to the legitimacy of the political system “in establishing the connection between citizens, social groupings and the political system, the parties contribute in anchoring the political order in the consciousness of the citizens and in social forces.”
Guyana has a multi-party system at the helm of which three entities dominate, those being the governing party the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) and the opposition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC).
Opposition parties have the function to criticise the government, “control it and put up constructive alternatives. This function is of great significance for a democracy, because without opposition a government tends to drift towards complacency and presumptuousness and fails to search for alternatives,” Hofmesiter and Grabow outline.
What is worthy to note is that the system of government influences the development of parties and party systems “insofar as a parliamentary system offers more influence for political parties because the government emerges directly from the parliament, which is dominated by the parties.” (Ibid)
According to Hofmesiter and Grabow  “in a Presidential system, it is the Head of Government, the President who is directly elected by the people and thus its legitimacy is based not primarily on the parliament. In addition, he mostly exercises, beside the Parliament, also legislative and other functions, and he normally has a right to veto Parliamentary decisions or even has the authority to dissolve the Parliament. So, at first glance, in Presidential systems parties play a minor role. On the other hand, in presidential systems the Separation of Powers is usually more evident, because the parties are not linked so closely with the government.”
In Parliamentary Systems, however, “the identity and especially the relationship between the government and the ruling party or parties is greater. Even so, in a Presidential system, the president also needs the approval of Parliament and a Parliamentary majority. The relative independence from the government which the parties enjoy in a presidential system is of considerable relevance. The number of parties represented in Parliament is only slightly influenced by the system of government. This is rather a question of social cleavages, eventually also the ethnic and other cleavages in a country, the structure of conflicts and interests and the electoral system.” (Ibid)
Guyana’s system is a Presidential one, where the executive is vested with considerable amounts of powers but is also influenced by the Parliament. Previously it was the PPP that had the Majority within the Parliament, however that dispensation was changed with the last General Elections and now the combined opposition has the majority in Parliament much to the dismay of the incumbent government.
This new dispensation has been the reason why there has been such a gridlock within the system to get things done. Since the opposition political parties have the majority in Parliament their input in how money is allocated and the dispensation of governance in the country is one that must be heard and followed.
However, what we find is that the minority government (PPP) is finding it very difficult to accept the current political configuration and finding all avenues, including the Courts, to operate as a majority that does not need the input of the opposition.
This back and forth between the opposition and government on not being able to come to a compromise has significantly affected the people, who are supposed to be the primary concern of political parties.
For the most part, development has been stymied because of the parties not being able to reach compromise on key areas within the budget in Parliament as well as important legislative frameworks that are needed to advance democracy within the country e.g. the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Legislation.
This uncompromising deadlock between the government and the opposition will have deleterious effects the longer both sides take to find agreement of key issues. So much so that there have been calls by some sections of the population for there to be snap National Elections, so that the current dispensation could be resolved, and a possible new one or old one introduces something which all the parties have indicated their readiness for.
Whatever the case may be, the answer lies now in the hands of people who have to be more participant and not parochial in their approach to politics within Guyana, if meaningful change is to take place. More has to be demanded from the political parties, who really should be representing the interest of the people and not the other way around, a quagmire that can only be rectified with participant politics.

---

---