One-man rule is a threat to democracy and good governance

Aug 11, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – A democratic system can only be sustained where there is accountability, transparency, and, in the case of plural societies, inclusion. When these principles are undermined, the system of democracy begins to unravel.

One of the most insidious threats to these principles is the emergence of one-man rule. This takes place where a single individual, often under the guise of a legitimate leadership role, exercises undue and excessive influence over decision-making processes. This disguised form of autocracy is no less dangerous than a blatant political dictatorship and presents a serious challenge to both democracy and good governance.

Democracy thrives on the collective input of its citizens and their representatives. It is much better also when power is distributed among various branches of government, each with its checks and balances, ensuring that no single entity or individual wields unchecked authority. However, when one person begins to dominate the decision-making process, these democratic institutions are at risk of being eroded.

One-man rule often emerges in systems where there is a concentration of power, whether in the executive branch, within a political party, or even in a corporate setting. The danger lies not just in the actions of the individual but in the systemic changes they often implement to solidify their control. This can include the weakening of the judiciary, the undermining of legislative bodies, and the suppression of dissent. Over time, what was once a robust democracy can become a mere façade, with the trappings of democratic processes but none of the substance.

Yet, there are persons who believe in one-man rule. They argue that it not only brings about efficiency in governance but that in polarized societies, autocratic tendencies are needed for stability and progress.

They claim that when decisions are made by a single, decisive leader, the process is streamlined, and the country can move forward without the delays caused by debates, negotiations, and compromises. On the surface, this argument may seem compelling, especially in times of crisis when quick decision-making is necessary. However, this efficiency is often illusory and comes at a significant cost.

The concentration of power in one individual leads to a lack of accountability. Decisions made unilaterally are not subject to the rigorous scrutiny that is essential in a democratic system. This can result in policies that are poorly thought out, harmful to the public, or designed to benefit a select few at the expense of the majority.

They absence of diverse perspectives in the decision-making process means that the resulting policies may not reflect the needs and desires of the broader population. This can be a source of problems.

As is known with the case of Forbes Burnham in Guyana, one-man rule is often accompanied by the rise of a cult of personality, where the leader is portrayed as infallible and indispensable. This is a dangerous development, as it creates an environment where loyalty to the individual supersedes loyalty to the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The leader’s image becomes synonymous with the state, and any criticism of their actions is seen as a threat to the nation itself.

This cult of personality can lead to the suppression of dissent. Those who challenge the leader’s decisions are labeled as enemies of the state or as traitors. In such an environment, the media, civil society, and even ordinary citizens may be intimidated into silence, leading to a chilling effect on free expression and the open exchange of ideas. This stifling of dissent is antithetical to the very essence of democracy, which relies on the free flow of information and the ability of citizens to hold their leaders accountable.

Good governance, on the other hand, is characterized by transparency, accountability, inclusivity and respect for the rule of law. One-man rule undermines each of these principles. When a single individual has excessive control over the government, transparency is often sacrificed. Decisions are made behind closed doors, and the public is kept in the dark about the true motivations and implications of those decisions. This lack of transparency breeds corruption, as there are fewer mechanisms in place to prevent or expose the misuse of power.

Accountability is another casualty of one-man rule. In a healthy democracy, leaders are accountable to the people and to other branches of government. However, when power is concentrated in the hands of one person, they are often shielded from accountability. The checks and balances that are supposed to keep leaders in line become ineffective, and the leader may feel emboldened to act with impunity.

Participation, a cornerstone of democracy, is also diminished under one-man rule. When decisions are made by a single individual, the voices of the people are marginalized. Citizens become mere spectators, rather than active participants in the governance of their country. This disengagement can lead to apathy and disillusionment, weakening the democratic process even further.

Guyana, even under its democratic system, must be vigilant against the dangers of consolidating power and influence in the hands of one man. The country already operates with an Executive President, vested with full executive authority, making it imperative to ensure that this power does not become unchecked. As Guyana embarks on constitutional reform, one of the key priorities should be to introduce mechanisms that place a check on this concentration of power. Allowing the Cabinet, by a two-thirds majority, to override a presidential edict would be a significant step in safeguarding democracy. This would ensure that executive decisions reflect broader consensus, thereby preserving the balance of power essential to good governance and preventing the emergence of one-man rule.

Even more dangerous is when a party official is permitted to wield excessive influence over the affairs of the state and government. Constitutional reform cannot fix this malady. It is for the public must speak out against this troubling trend, which often stems from weak presidential leadership.

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

---

• accountability, Democracy, governance, Peeping Tom, Transparency

---