One-man rule presents a real and present danger

Jun 15, 2023 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – Guyana’s modern political history saw the emergence of two charismatic and dominant political figures. Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan cast their spell across society, each drawing massive support from their respective ethnic constituencies.

Both Cheddi and Forbes dominated the politics of their respective parties but in vastly different ways. Burnham was a singular and unchallenged force within his party. He would listen but then have his way.

Cheddi would listen also but be more democratic. He was known to have heated debates in the leadership of his party with his wife, Janet, but would always succumb to the wishes of the overall majority, except that many of them would be in such awe of him that they hardly opposed him.

Guyana is now a modernizing country and one–man leadership has no place in  its future development.  Unless Guyanese and especially the supporters of the PPPC ditch one-man leadership and domination, the so-called transformation which is planned is going to flop.

The American political system has its flaws. But one of its strengths that has prevented the descent into authoritarian and undemocratic rule has been its system of checks and balances.

On the other hand, the British-Westminster system does not have that complexity of checks and balances. and thus is more vulnerable to being overrun by autocrats and demagogues. One-man leadership is capable of exploiting this vulnerability and undermining democratic institutions, as we saw with the failure to adhere to the constitution concerning the passage of the no-confidence motion and the appointment of a former Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission.

For a modernizing country, one-man leadership carries risks.  It is important that as a country modernizes that there is greater decentralization of decision-making, greater accommodation for dissenting views, and end to nepotism and cronyism and greater transparency and accountability.

One-man leadership undermines all of these things. By consolidating power in a single person, a country risks concentrating decision-making authority, limiting political discourse, and suppressing dissenting voices. Such a scenario diminishes the accountability of leaders, making it easier for them to pursue personal agendas or act in an autocratic manner, neglecting the diverse interests and needs of the population.

The neo-liberal institutions have argued for the need for strong institutions if development is to take place. On the other hand, one-man leadership encourages a culture of sycophancy and a lack of critical thinking within institutions. When power becomes concentrated, individuals seeking favour with the leader are incentivized to prioritize personal loyalty over competence and integrity. This can compromise the effectiveness and impartiality of key institutions, such as the judiciary, civil service, and regulatory bodies. The erosion of institutional integrity weakens the rule of law, hampers transparency, and fosters an environment where corruption can flourish, further hindering the modernization process.

We hear a lot about the need for inclusion if no one is to be left behind and if there is to be a system of ideational pluralism – a marketplace where persons will be free to express and advocate diverse viewpoints without fear of being attacked and ridiculed.

When dissent is seen as a threat to the leader’s authority, fundamental rights and liberties are often curtailed. This not only hampers the creativity and innovation required for modernization but also fosters a climate of fear and oppression, hindering social progress and stability.

We also hear a lot about the need for sustainable development and the need to protect the environment. However, the concentration of power in the hands of one individual can lead to shortsighted decision-making, prioritizing immediate gains over long-term sustainability. Without the input of diverse stakeholders, including civil society and expert opinions, leaders may overlook critical issues, neglecting environmental concerns, social inequalities, and the need for inclusive economic policies. As a result, the pursuit of modernization becomes unbalanced and unsustainable, potentially exacerbating societal divisions and leaving future generations with an inherited legacy of problems.

In Guyana today, development is imbalanced because of the excessive focus on infrastructural development and the crass inequalities that are being created because of lopsided development policies.One man-leadership creates a crisis of succession and is now obvious within the PPPC.  When persons wield power from behind the scenes when one man can dictate the outcome of a party’s deliberations on its presidential candidate and when that one man can exert a controlling and domineering influence behind the scenes, then there is a serious threat to political succession and stability.

Guyana is showing the signs and symptoms of one-man rule. It is now fast approaching three years since the PPPC assumed office and onto now major diplomatic appointments have not been made. Almost three weeks ago, we were told that there would be a Commission of Inquiry into the fire at Madhia. No further announcement has been made. Is there a decision-making gridlock within the government? What about the outstanding constitutional appointments? Why is more progress being made in this front?

Guyanese have suffered in the past because of strong-man politics. Now with more resources to modernize the economy, it must ditch one-man rule, and this has to begin within our political parties.

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

---

• Cheddi Jagan, constituencies, Forbes Burnham, Guyanese, Peeping Tom

---