A broader explanation of the current impasse

May 10, 2020 Features / Columnists, Hinds' Sight with Dr. David Hinds

---

After ten weeks without a declared winner of the March 2 elections, it is time to ask serious questions about Guyana’s future. Why has this impasse been so prolonged with no end in sight anytime soon? After all, we have had contested elections and charges and countercharges of rigged elections before but none of them dragged on this long. So, what is different about the 2020 elections?
If one listens to the PPP and its allies, one gets the impression that if only we can get the PNC to stop rigging elections, agree to democratic norms, and be a good opposition, our problems would be solved—Guyana would be a model country under the PPP. And if you listen to the PNC leaders and their allies, you hear a similar rhetoric—the PPP is the problem, they rig elections in their strongholds, and they have a master plan for ethno-political domination.
The truth is while electoral malpractice is part of the Guyanese political architecture and cuts across party lines, it is not the sum-total of Guyana’s problems. This is not to say that one must ignore the perception and reality of imperfect elections; it is a central part of the problem. The point I am making is that if we solve that aspect of our politics, the overarching problems will not disappear. So, the PNC did not rig the 1992 elections—they were voted out of office. Did our political problems end? No, here we are in 2020 having the same conversation. The PPP lost power in 2015. Their ethno-racial domination came to an end. Did our political problems go away? No, here we are in 2020 on the edge once again. I am contending that to understand what has unfolded these past ten weeks, we have to move beyond the rigged elections scenario because it is only one of the factors.
A second related factor is that since the 1961 election neither party has accepted the other as the electoral winner. From 1964 to 1985, the PPP never accepted the PNC as the winner, ostensibly because they, the PNC, rigged the elections. But in 2011 and 2015 when the PNC was not charged with systematic rigging, the PPP still refused to accept them as winners. And we know that the PNC never accepted the PPP as the winner of the four elections from 1992 to 2006. At the heart of the refusal to grant legitimacy to the opposite party is the now commonly accepted truism that neither major ethnic group wants to be governed by the other. They confirm that by repeatedly voting for their ethnic parties even when they express dissatisfaction with those parties. We see here the convergence of the class interests of the working class and the elites.
A third factor is the historic but often muted competition for political, economic, and cultural resources. In a society that has not developed a political praxis of sharing and in a system of majoritarian winner-takes-all, there is a zero-sum competition for power. Who wins the competition for political power gets to preside over the distribution of economic and cultural resources. In other words when the party wins political power, it is not just a victory for the party but more importantly for the ethnic group.
What is different in 2020 is that Guyana is potentially on the brink of Oil and Gas wealth. The two groups now have something tangible to fight over. Which of the two parties would govern and manage the oil wealth? Both groups have reason to believe that if the opposite party gets into power it would not democratically distribute the wealth. When the PNC was in power, Indian Guyanese complained bitterly of being discriminated against. That charge grew louder when the PPP took power as African Guyanese claimed systemic economic marginalisation and economic genocide. In 2020, both parties would view surrendering to the other as a betrayal of the wishes of their group to control the oil wealth.
The fourth factor that explains the prolonged impasse is the intimate involvement of external forces in the election. The truth is that the ABCE countries have always been involved in Guyanese elections and politics. From the British invasion in 1953 through the American and British intervention in the 1960s and beyond to the Carter Center engagement from 1992 to the present, the foreign involvement has been constant. If the previous involvement was ideological (the fear of communism), the 2020 involvement is different—it is directly political and economic.
The coming of oil has returned Guyana squarely into the orbit of American and European hegemony. These countries by the very definition of their foreign policy are protecting their national interests—they have to. Anyone who has studied Guyanese politics would know that the ABCE countries have always favoured one side or the other depending on which one serves their interests. But this is the first time since the end of the Cold War that they have overtly showed their preference. It is clear that they prefer the PPP. Here it must be remembered that in 2015, the PPP vehemently charged the Americans with involvement in the election and with installing the Coalition in power.
This deep involvement of the ABCE countries has consequences for the behaviour of the two parties. The PPP is emboldened by the open support. The embrace of the PPP has opened the way for the Coalition parties to wrap themselves in nationalism and paint the PPP as the party that is willing to trade Guyana’s sovereignty for power. Further, by entangling themselves so deeply in the election, the ABCE countries have exposed themselves rightly or wrongly to the charges of interference in the country’s affairs. Finally, just as they did in the 1960s, they have once again found themselves in the middle of an ethnic conflict.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)
More of Dr. Hinds’ writings and commentaries can be found on his YouTube Channel Hinds’ Sight: Dr. David Hinds’ Guyana-Caribbean Politics and on his website www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.news. Send comments to [email protected]

---

---