The polarization of politics did not prevent the holding of free and fair elections

Mar 09, 2021 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Looked at through the prism of Guyanese politics, what we refer to as a polarized society does not mean an absence of democracy; in fact it is that very polarization that gives expression to a more robust democracy and a climate of heightened competitiveness for party politics. The polarization of politics in Guyana did not prevent the holding of free and fair elections in fact, it demanded it.
Under these peculiar circumstances, polarization as a release valve for political tension in the day to day life of the wider Guyanese society, is not as obvious as it would be in an election season.
However, the absence of political tension during or after elections in the form of street protests should not be interpreted as a climate of political stability. At the same time, the maintenance of political stability can easily be jeopardized, if sustained efforts and hard work are not done to maintain the country’s macroeconomic fundamentals, ensure good governance, growth in the economy, end corruption, creation of job opportunities, provision of goods and services as well as the provision of a living wage for the Guyanese working people. Here in Guyana, the phenomenon of secondary tension and its pervasiveness is an underlying factor that tends to mask political stability.
In the Guyanese context, secondary tension is manifested in: prison outbreaks; spikes in crime; a rise in occurrences of domestic violence and child abuse, mental illnesses and social malaize. In these matters, there is no polarization though cumulatively, if allowed to fester, they can contribute to political instability.
Political stability and secondary tension are factors that ought to be investigated together if an objective determination is to be made as regards the absence or presence of political and ethnic polarization in Guyana.
Polarization does not harm democracy nor does it paralyze it. In fact, polarization opens up the prospects for enhanced democracy whether it is freedom of movement, freedom of speech or freedom to peaceful protest.
While there may be isolated instances of restricting movement because of national security or public health concerns, such restrictions albeit of a temporary nature, cannot be interpreted to mean that there is an absence of fundamental freedoms in the wider society.
In polarized societies such as ours, the Judiciary is called upon to play a critical role, it must rise and stand above the political fray and not be perceived to be in concubinage with nor contaminated by the polarized environment and establishment.
If at any time, the judiciary were to be perceived as captive of the polarized environment, that would send a strong signal indicating that Guyana has embarked on the road to being a failed state, which as matters stand, is certainly not the case.
Polarization does not mean marginalization. Though the two are not mutually exclusive nor incompatible. They are two separate socio-political processes. With the introduction by the colonial powers of social structures of societies based on tribes, slavery, indentureship, ethnicity and religion, historical experience has shown that polarization and marginalization can give birth to political and social forces who champion extremist, and sometimes adventurist positions that can disrupt the peace and good order in society.
Polarization was born as a result of foreign domination. Ironically, its birth created the conditions for the introduction of a democratic process, for example, the electoral process. It was that process that helped democratize polarization within the framework of a democracy. Perceptive polarization amongst Guyanese can be deceptive to the extent that it is almost non-existent in their day to day lives save and except in an election season.
It is the echo-chamber that stirs and promotes polarization, political, ethnic or otherwise. The echo chamber is largely responsible for providing a comfort level for those who hold that their view or action is the correct way and any other view or action is not.
Lack of knowledge and a breakdown in communication facilitates polarization. Refusing to acknowledge what each other stand for is to engage in a dialogue of the deaf. The process degenerates with the introduction of the racial and ethnic factor at every bend of the river. In the recent budget debate the government projected the country’s developmental trajectory while the opposition rejected outright the 2021 budget measures.
Under these conditions, the culture of the blame game become a convenient political tool. At the same time, little or no attention is paid to the possibility that, with free and fair elections, and with the prospects for change, the policies of a political party may very well have a shelf life of just five years.
The loss of political power allegedly due to polarization in voting patterns and the perceived decrease in the allocation of resources can result in increased struggle by those who, in a democracy, feel a sense of social exclusion and deprivation. But the social and economic manifestations of polarization taken holistically, can bring about unity and struggle of the opposites.
In a reconstituted GECOM there are good prospects for constructive engagement between government and opposition. At the Parliamentary level, between 1992 and 2018, approximately 436 Bills and Motions were passed without division in the National Assembly.
It seems as though for now, Parliament and GECOM are the only two institutions where good prospects exist to address the challenge of polarization not only from an institutional perspective but also for national advancement. Bipartisan cooperation by government and opposition at these two levels can be tested and hopefully, prove to be successful in more than a hundred ways for the good of our country and people.
Yours truly,
Clement J. Rohee

---

---