‘Avoid polarized exclusionary politics.’

Feb 19, 2024 Letters

Dear Editor

The freedom of a people depends upon its vigilance in designing, establishing, reforming, and implementing governance arrangements to keep the political establishment in check, and it is the duty of the law enforcement body, the government – usually politicians, – to ensure that the laws are followed. Plato opined that ‘Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws’. Ironically, universally politicians are thought to be the archetypical ‘bad’ people. In the world’s most/least trusted profession index, politicians are the least trusted: only 14% of those surveyed trusted government ministers and the number is 10% for politicians generally. On the other hand, teachers were among the top three most trusted professions: doctors 64%, scientists 61% teachers 55% (https://www.eqs.com/compliance-blog/).

The laws, then, must be very strong and more than that, last week I argued that ‘What the present teachers dispute also teaches is that democratic, open, and transparent government requires more than rules: it requires a substantial body of citizens willing to stand up in the protection of the rules.’ This means protection of the law against recalcitrant employers as a category but also against politicians, an important constitutional guardian of the law, whenever they transgress the rules. This is why, as it is with the teachers, those who feel suppressed and cheated have to keep their power dry: ‘wait before taking action but be ready to take action if it is necessary.’

At the national level, last week I noted that Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo suggested that when it comes to ‘who rules’ supporters in his ethnic strongholds ‘will vote PPP’. At least subliminally, most of us have known for decades that what he said is true. For instance, a recent editorial in the Stabroek News implied that for the PPP supporters to do otherwise than he suggested is almost unreal. ‘It cannot have escaped its (the PPP’s) attention that the teachers have come out in numbers even in its heartland areas, where many of them would not dream of voting for APNU’ (SN: 07/02/2024). Similarly, amid many contradictions – e.g., Cheddi Jagan was foolish not to support the USA during the Cold War, but Forbes Burnham was wicked to do so – in his quarrel with Mr. Clement Rohee, Dr. Vishnu Bisram pointed out that Indians ‘did not vote to build communism … The(ir) choice was an African PNC or an Indian PPP. It was inevitable people would line up behind the party of their race!’

I have no problem with Bisram’s position of the right of people to vote for their ethnic group. But the history of Guyana and elsewhere has taught that once the contesting groups are sufficiently large the usual democratic manner of doing business – free elections together with even-handed governance – tends to be deficient. In a competitive democratic state it would be amoral and impractical to try and prevent politicians of a given ethnicity from attempting to protect the interest of that group.

But what Clement sought to avoid, and Dr. Bisram needs to consider, is how we are to liberal democratically organize the racialized masses that have resulted from our history. This column objects to any formulation of a ‘One Guyana’ that implies that the PPP or any other party has a right, as the PPP has been attempting to do to Africans, to destroy representative ethnic-associated organisations. This is particularly galling when the PPP blatantly does every possible thing to keep its ethnic base intact!

There is the admirable humanist approach such as that of Mr. Jamil Changlee, Chairman of The Cooperative Republic of Guyana. ‘Our sugar workers and all workers in our country’, he told us, ‘have a right to be heard. We all have a right to live in dignity. We know what we lose when our unions are weak. We know how much sacrifice was made for our unions to come into existence. It is our patriotic duty to ensure that we keep our unions strong and that we keep the legacy of our founding fathers alive. I invite the Ministry of Education and the current administration to ponder on our history and the importance of organized labour. … It is time to show the world that Guyana will always stand with its workers and allow their collective voices to be heard and respected.’ (KN: 09/02/24).

Mr. Changlee’s type of moralistic exhortations that require timely wholesale behaviour change in politicians and the population are prevalent but nonetheless utopian. Laws are made by the people for the people and the idea of trying to remake people, particularly politicians, fit into existing perennially problematical administrative constructs by appealing to their good sense, is not useful.

The contribution of Mr. Timothy Jonas, the general secretary of a New and United Guyana (ANUG), is more grounded but no less problematical. ‘A New and United Guyana presents a solution’ he said, ‘if the Government of the day does not control the thirty-third seat in Parliament. Only if a third party holds that seat will the Government of the day be unable to unilaterally change the laws to consolidate its control. It will be compelled to include the Opposition in decision-making, so that the two large parties will have to meet and agree on policies and spending and contracts and economics before any oil money is spent. It is only when both parties can participate in the decision-making that we will be able to truly say ‘One Guyana’ (SN: 07/02/2024).

Timothy’s final sentence is true, but like Clement, the logical leap he made – ‘Only if a third party holds that seat will the Government of the day be unable to unilaterally change the laws to consolidate its control’ – is amoral, ahistorical, and unnecessary. Apart from a legal procrustean complex, what moral ground is there to give power to a party with one/two seats the right to determine if any autocratically inclined government ‘include(s) the opposition in decision-making’? Would it not be more democratic to have rules that allow the much larger opposition to perform this function for itself, its supporters and the country?

Secondly, Guyana’s history is replete with small parties joining with the government of the day to stymie the wishes of the opposition. In recent times The Alliance for Change could have objected or walked away from many unacceptable things the Coalition government did, but failed to do so! For example, it has been a part of Westminster-type and Guyana’s parliamentary tradition that the official opposition gets the deputy speakership (DS), but immediately upon the coalition coming to government that position was usurped by AFC. Indeed, perhaps ANUG would have been more of a moral/political force today if it had not taken, or had disassociated itself from taking, the DS position when it was made available by the PPP to the joinder-group.

‘Guyanese Society must go beyond the polarized exclusionary politics by which we operate presently’ (‘GPSU says budget will not address poverty, cost of living unless priorities reconsidered.’ SN: 15/02/2024). Broadly, this is the sensible answer to Clement and Dr. Bisram. But it requires the removal of the winner-takes-all political system by using the whole range of consociational measures: vetoes, supermajority, etc., to where necessary, restrict the range of governmental powers and protect and enhance the interest of all Guyanese.