Inclusionary democracy is a euphemism for consultative democracy

Oct 07, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – Bharrat Jagdeo needs no reminder about Article 13 of the Constitution. The amendment of the 1980 Constitution, which enacted the present Article 13, was assented to under his remit.

Article 13 (the so-called inclusionary article) of the present Constitution is different in context from Article 13 of the 1980 Constitution. In yesterday’s edition of the Kaieteur News, one letter writer, alleging that Jagdeo was intolerant to criticism, claimed that that Article 13 existed almost verbatim to the 1980 Constitution.

A comparison may be helpful in determining whether this is so. Article 13 of the 1980 Constitution states: ‘The principal objective of the political system of the State is to extend socialist democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens in the management and decision-making processes of the State.’

Article 13 of the present Constitution states: ‘The principal objective of the political system is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.’

On face value it may appear that the two provisions are almost verbatim. But the context makes them entirely different concepts. In the 1980 Constitution, the principal objective of the country’s political system was to extend socialist democracy. In the Constitutional Reform process the principal objective of the political system was no longer about extending socialist democracy but about promoting inclusionary democracy.

Inclusionary democracy is a bourgeois concept, contrived by the Washington Consensus, to deceive the masses into believing that they have a say or ought to have a say in the manner in which the State is managed. In a subsequent column, I will dissect the bourgeois roots of inclusionary democracy.

In the 1980 Constitution, citizens’ participation in decision-making and management of the State had a socialist orientation. In fact, at the local government level Burnham was moving closer towards the Cuban model through the establishment of supreme organs of democratic power such as the National Congress of Local Democratic Organs and the Supreme Congress of the People.

The latter, the Supreme Congress of the People, flouted the concept of the separation of powers. It co-opted all members of the National Assembly and the National Congress of Local Democratic Organs and, like Cabinet, was an advisory body to the President. This was Burnham’s idea of extending socialist democracy.

The subsequent amendment to Article 13 watered down socialist democracy to inclusionary democracy. Inclusionary democracy is a euphemism for consultative democracy.

This is why there is a clause in the present Article 13 which speaks to ‘particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.’ In other words, inclusionary democracy is really about consulting the people about matters which affect their well-being; it is not about making them part of the substantive and overall political management of the State.

Article 13 is a bourgeois concept. This is one of the reasons why elements of the professional, academic and the middle and petite bourgeois classes are so fond of it. They see it as a backdoor mechanism which entitles them to a say in national affairs regardless of whether they represent a constituency or the size of any such constituency. Four or five persons can form a group and contend that they have a right to be consulted since some policy will affect them.

When the Vice President therefore holds a consultation about the construction of a road, it is a form of consultative democracy and falls within the rubric of inclusionary democracy. So the Government satisfies the form of inclusionary democracy when it hosts these talk-shop consultations to give the stamp of public ownership to decisions of the ruling political elite.

It is a paradox to speak of inclusionary democracy when there is an Executive President in which full executive authority is reposed. Not even the combined Cabinet can overrule the President.

The Cabinet is only advisory to the President. All the Ministers can do is to advise the President. No wonder some Ministers are paralyzed when it comes to making decisions. They know they have to clear things with the big honcho. Taking initiative and making decision on the spot runs the risk of doing something which will not find favour with the President and thus subject the Ministers to being admonished.

Such a system produces a certain kind of Minister. One day, we may end up with Ministers having to seek Presidential approval to go to the toilet.

But such a system lends itself to micromanagement. No wonder a former head of GOINVEST once described a former President as being a control freak.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

 

 

---

---