Is the labelling of Guyana as an autocratic society by some a specious or trustworthy claim?

Sep 21, 2024 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

For Guyanese to feel overwhelmed by the chatter about ‘autocracy’ and ‘democracy’ within the recent past is quite understandable. Several individuals, including myself, have either written, or commented on whether the current Guyana government is ‘autocratic’ or ‘democratic’.

As readers of the daily newspapers, Guyanese must have gleaned from letters to the editors that the opinions expressed by some of the contributing authors on ‘autocracy and democracy’ quickly became quite contentious. The contentiousness springs from the trenchants of disquieting writers who claim Guyana is an autocratic state. Is this a specious or trustworthy claim? Let’s examine.

At a rudimentary level, a specious claim is one that may appear true but is actually false or purposely deceptive. Most often, the speciousness can be attributed to one, or a combination of factors, such as the writers’ intent, his/her notion of autocracy, the absence of verifiable data to substantiate claims of autocracy, and the truism that the terms autocratic and democratic are fluid depictions of governance in which fundamental principles of one predominates.

What then is the truly case of Guyana?

By its very definition, an autocratic government is one in which “one person possesses unlimited or absolute power.” As readily evidenced, ‘unlimited or absolute,’ means total, unrestricted, and power refers to the ‘ability to control the behavior of others even against their will.’ Taken together, the questions arise as to: (i)Who in Guyana possesses unlimited power to dominate, and totally control the lives of Guyanese? (ii) Does this person have under his unilateral command a supportive structure such as law enforcement, a paramilitary force, or personal army to assist in maintaining control – especially since such is necessary to establish and sustain domination. (iii) Does the person have dominance over the judicial system that adjudicates in accordance with his dictates? (iv) Are opposition leaders prosecuted and imprisoned, or are they allowed to freely organize, campaign, espouse their political philosophies and challenge governmental decisions? (v) Are critics of the government constantly threatened, harassed and silenced?

The above are just a few important questions associated with determining and authenticating the characteristics of an autocratic leader/state which then leads one to ask: Since much of the claim of autocracy seems to focus on Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo: How can Guyana be considered an autocratic state since Jagdeo neither has, nor enjoys absolute power. Isn’t this a specious and not trustworthy claim? Or is it simply an attempt to insult the intelligence of Guyanese?

With the above in mind, let us focus attention on some of the main principles/policies of a democratic state which will help in the determination whether Guyana is an autocracy or democracy. As defined by Encyclopedia Britannica “democracy is a system of government in which power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or through freely elected representatives.” And, as Levitsky and Ziblatt (2019) state, “… democracy [is] a system of government with regular free and fair elections, in which all adult citizens have the right to vote and possess basic civil liberties such as freedom of speech and association.”

These definitions make clear that in a democratic society, it is the people who elect the representatives who then constitute the government, a government that upholds the freedoms and civil liberties of citizens. This prompts one to ask. (a) How did the Guyana government come into being? Is it by democratic elections or military coup? and, (b) Do Guyanese enjoy such basic freedoms as criticizing, or protesting against the government without fear of retribution?

Perhaps a random review of the daily newspapers helps to provide the answers to these questions for they readily reveal that the current government was duly elected, and that daily attacks against the administration are ongoing without retaliation or retribution.

In addition to the above, it should be noted that elections and freedoms are not the sole hallmarks of democracy. As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen (1999) noted, the true realities of a democratic society are how well the institutions – political, economic, social, educational, and health – interact and intersect to uplift the ordinary citizens of the society.

Even at a preliminary level, one can attest to the rapid developments taking place because the Guyana government has promulgated policies, and undertaken initiatives that permit free and fair elections, grant free education to all eligible citizens, make possible opportunities for gainful employment and housing, encourage entrepreneurship, improve healthcare, and does so without discrimination against, or victimization of religious, racial, and ethnic groups. This being so, then how can one assume that Guyanese live in an autocratic and not a democratic society? Is it because of the conscious effort of government opponents to propagandize the population? The answer is self-evident. Isn’t it?

Given that Guyana is a newly developing society, all government services may yet to be realized, or evidenced at maximum levels, but such are the growing pains of the coming of age of this young nation state. Being cognizant of this, Guyanese are positioned to assess their lived realities for themselves, and in so doing, would readily conclude that the freedoms and access to opportunities make the claim that Guyana is an autocratic state specious and not trustworthy.

Regards,

Narayan Persaud, PhD

Professor Emeritus

---

• Guyana, Narayan Persaud, PhD, Professor Emeritus, trustworthy

---