Democracy has benefited the few

Mar 07, 2015 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
According to Webster’s Dictionary, democracy is government in which the people hold the ruling power, either directly or through elected representatives; the principle of equality of rights, opportunity etc, or the practice of this principle.
In the Caribbean, democracy is more popular than Pepper Pot is in Guyana .Of the thirteen colonies to become independent after World War II, only three have had governments that have not been chosen by free and fair elections (a revolutionary one-party state in Grenada, a Mexican-style corporatist dominant party in Guyana, and military dictatorship in Suriname) and ten have had democratic government continuously since independence.
This is demonstrating an unusual affinity for democracy by countries that have been colonized: Latin America, Africa and Asia have demonstrated a greater tendency for dictatorship. But is democracy simply voting and placing a government to do as it please?
A close scrutiny of China’s constitution shows it recognizes its government as democratic. The fifth article of their constitution states “The organizational principle for the state organs is democratic centralism.” However, China does not have an adversarial democracy like the Westminster system or the US congressional system, but a democracy, because the people of China choose their leaders without competition. It is a contradiction that is difficult for a western educated person (such as me) to grasp. In China, “The Communist Party is the sole political party in power.” Singapore has a similar system but is not considered a dictatorship. Why is that?
To compare the Caribbean’s almost unquestioning preference to democracy, a study of Latin America – in which 20,000 people were surveyed in the 18 Latin American countries for the project – shows that the region faces severe challenges that have led to a deep sense of popular dissatisfaction with its democratically chosen leaders. Slow economic growth, severe inequalities, and deepening poverty levels are triggering popular unrest and undermining confidence in electoral democracy.
The report’s message is clear: democracy is in trouble. More than half of all Latin Americans – 54.7% -say they would opt for an “authoritarian” regime over democratic government if authoritarianism could “resolve” their economic problems.
Almost all of Latin America is living under a democracy, but the people are not contended and seem willing to have a benevolent dictator. In contrast, we in the Caribbean are hyper-concerned about democracy. The swift reaction to the slow transition of government in St Kitts and Nevis demonstrates that point. Almost immediately the Caribbean community reacted.
I read articles within a week, in about ten Caribbean countries, expressing their discontent with the apparent attempt to hold on to power. I agree with the concerns, however, we in the Caribbean seem to be more concerned about democracy rather than quality of life. Has democracy made every single citizen of Caricom have enough food to eat, get a quality education and have a living wage after completion of school?
I would like to argue that any system that does not do that – have the maximum wellbeing of all its citizens, has failed or at best has to achieve its final outcome – in other words is a work in progress.
There is competition between China and the United States of America. At the 2014 APEC Summit of Pacific Rim countries, China attempted negotiations on a regional agreement, the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific. This was hindered by the US which supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement that excludes China. China considers the TPP an instrument of its containment by the US and has responded with the China—ASEAN Free Trade Area involving Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam.
In 2014, China’s President Xi Jingping met with the Caribbean Community in Trinidad and Tobago and shortly before US Vice President Joe Biden met with Caricom. Most Caribbean leaders and the general populace will tend to favour the US. We get US television and a lot of our relatives live there and we natural have a cultural bias being products of a western education system.
A number of concerns expressed were about China’s cultural values with regard to democracy and human rights. Again, we must understand that all countries throughout civilization go through social and economic developments that are correlated. China is going through a similar process. The fact that China amended its constitution in 1982, 1988, 1993 and 1999, supports the assertion that it is going through political, economic and social changes simultaneously. The media report of Chinese dissidence such as in Tiananmen Square is a sign of social progress. I view Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X as US dissidents.
The US is still the world’s leading country, but Russia will not allow Ukraine to join NATO. According to the Moscow Times, President Vladimir Putin’s March 18, 2014 speech announcing the annexation of Crimea was similar to US objecting to missiles being place in Cuba in 1962. Arguing that Russia was forced to annex Crimea to forestall the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, Putin asserted that the West “had lied to us many times”.
Al-Qaida and ISIS are also determined to create their own global order. Choosing sides should not be our concern, but doing what is in our best interest, and it does not have to be in the more powerful country’s best interest. History has shown that it does not matter who the colonizer is, they will look after themselves at the expense of the colonized. Today we not only face countries, but transnational corporations that are more powerful than many countries.
We in Guyana, the Caribbean and Latin America must be determined to live a good quality of life. We can’t only be obsessed with ideology such as communism, capitalism and democracy. If democracy is not delivering a good quality of life for its citizens, either it is not genuine democracy or democracy is not omnipotent, or both. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If the majority of people in a country are poor and powerless, then that system is not in the best interest of the nation.
In 507 BC Cleisthenes put into effect in Greece the world’s first democratic constitution. In 1215 King John of England was forced to sign the Magna Carta. This Great Charter stated that a king would no longer collect taxes unless the Great Council agreed and freeman accused had the right to trail by their peers or equal. This was a monumental step toward democracy, because it made everyone subject to the law.
The peril of modern democracy is a great number of developing nations are not producing enough food to feed their people and buy it elsewhere. They do not have enough money to provide decent housing, health care and education for their citizens.
Democracy is meant to produce equality and prosperity for all, but it has failed to do that in the developing world. I am in support of democracy in Guyana and all countries, but not an ineffective model. In every developing country you have very rich persons who sometimes throw away food, while some people don’t even have enough food. My basic argument is that democracy has benefited the few and to be a genuine democracy it must benefit all, with a good quality of life.
Brian E Plummer

---

---