USAID’s Democracy Report is flawed

Aug 23, 2016 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

There is a USAID (United States Agency for International Development) report that is making the news. The essential point is that government has to shape the impulse for a democratic, free society. Certainly no one would disagree. From the time the British colonials allowed local elections and the PPP under Cheddi Jagan won the 1957 general elections, central government has not been a democratic cauldron but an authoritarian mix of class privilege, elitism, benevolent dictatorship, populist patronage, ethnic protectionism, transformational stagnation and mono-cultural, economic ideology.
This has been the pattern from 1957 to the present. There are some who are psychologically comforted by their own delusions into thinking Forbes Burnham was a great president; he was not. Under Jagdeo, the Caribbean saw its worst forms of oligarchy and conspiratorial governance. The presidency of Desmond Hoyte was tragically contradictory. He offered freedom to some and took it away from others.
The 2015 Coalition Government shows not even a modicum of vision and transformative instincts. In fact, unlike the epochs of Burnham, Hoyte and Jagdeo, the present government seems not to have an idea where it wants to go. Burnham did, but he faltered badly in the process. Hoyte did, but his direction was hardly all-embracing. Jagdeo did, but his direction was frightening. In all three cases, the men knew where they wanted to go. I am not sure Granger and Nagamootoo have decided on that as yet.
Looking at our patterns of government since 1957, there have been ongoing deceptive and episodic moments of governmental intentions to democratize Guyana. That intention is still deceiving, deceptive and decrepit. The USAID Report on Guyana’s prospects for a democratic future is right, in the context that in small Guyana where the state is a ubiquitous Leviathan, the role of the government in setting up and implementing a democratic agenda is priceless. But the document has serious sociological defects.
I suspect that the assessment was done by American scholars. I have no idea how many Guyanese and Caribbean scholars contributed to the project, but no matter how sharp the methodologies are, the cultural context of any study in comparative politics is essential. This is where the USAID scholars fell down. In advocating the pivotal role of the government in the implementation of a democracy agenda, the study lacks an in-depth evaluation of Guyana’s sociological and political evolution.
You cannot hope for the consolidation of democracy, through government’s initiative, when the society itself does not understand the philosophical meaning of justice, freedom and democracy, has no interest in such concepts, and practices egregious forms of violations. The USAID project will fail because its theoretical fulcrums are shaky. The USAID project’s advocacy is one-sided, therefore its projections will dissipate as the years move on in Guyana. The government tomorrow can embrace all the dimensions of democracy, but if the population is flippant about liberties and justice, then failure is predictable.
Where is the recognition and embrace of democracy by civil society and the non-political sections of this entire country? Guyana has no functioning consumer rights body and no functioning human rights organizations. The Bar Association and Women Lawyers’ Associations are certainly not active organizations on the democratic front. Guyana is the only (not “one of” but the only) country where the academics and students of the university are totally inaudible and invisible.
The trade union movement has some seriously authoritarian people in its leadership that intend to grow old and die in the positions they currently hog. The only thing left is for those unionists to go to the courts and have the unions registered as their personal property. The doctors, lawyers and other professional people in this country show no interest in speaking out on any violation from any quarter or section of the society, not matter how despicable.
The most disappointing part of the Guyana landscape is the official bodies of the business community like the Private Sector Commission, Chambers of Commerce etc. These people have never involved their organization in a democracy project. And the reason is because democracy has never been a preoccupation with them. Finally, the churches. This society could collapse in the worst forms of authoritarian excesses, and the churches of all denominations will remain silent.
The problem with that USAID study is that it has only one central focus – the role of government in shaping a democratic future. But let’s say the government becomes super-human and implements an almost perfect democratic, legal and infrastructural system. Will that guarantee freedom, justice and liberties where civil society and the population at large refuse to recognize and embrace it?
The Guyanese people do not care about democracy. Why ask the government to give it to them?

---

---