‘Initiating democratic governance in Guyana’

Apr 07, 2025 Letters

---

Dear Editor

Today, under the rubric of economic growth, autocratic regimes worldwide – in Africa, America Guyana and Asia – are attempting to hypnotise their populations with material incentives as they systematically remove the human desire and right to democratic self-government. Even when quite well-meaning people speak in favour of democracy, they emphasise its relationship to material outcomes rather than what it really is, namely the expression of human freedom in the social setting. The result is that the gap between dictatorship and democracy is being blurred, and it is commonplace to view a flourishing human future as the attainment of material goods regardless of the nature of governance. So what are the conceptual underpinnings of this notion of human freedom, democracy and self government and how can one formulate and implement a response to the current autocratic regime in Guyana?

Briefly, humans are uniquely rational social beings who hanker after the purest form of freedom and the best possible quality of life. Rationality suggests that people’s lives will be ‘nasty, brutish and short’ if they do not establish some form of government to establish social order. The question, then, is what should be the relationship between the wish for freedom, acquiring the best quality of life and the restrictive nature of government?

Real freedom begins where the social necessity to act ends and liberal democracy with its notions of the separation of powers, limited government, majority rule, minority rights, the rule of law and protection of private property, is an expression of freedom in the social setting. A natural result of the effort to protect maximum individual freedom in the context of effective governance and development.

However, the demand for both maximum freedom and the good life, i.e. improved standard of living with the least expenditure of time and labour, resulted in the actual socialisation of property – the establishment of private, public and other forms of corporations and associations – to more effectively use the existing human and economic resources. What then should be the nature of governance when in effect, private property ceases to be private?  Democratic socialism – the democratisation of property relations – is a natural reaction to this development.

But where it does not exist and liberal democracy has not been sufficiently strong, the disparity of private wealth has reached a point where some claim that a few billionaires are poised to rule the liberal democratic world. Not unlike what takes place in autocratic domains, self-governance, democracy and human freedom are to  be curtailed as populations are bedazzled by materialistic megaprojects.

This materialist emphasis dominates political thinking in Guyana. One day Mr. Lincoln Lewis tells us that the present focus of the government ‘should not solely be on building new roads and bridges but on ensuring decent wages, salaries, and pensions that reflect the cost of living. The future of Guyana must be one of equity and opportunity for all its people. This isn’t just about economic growth … politicians don’t prioritise the creation of a just and inclusive society.’ (KN: 01/04/2025).

And literally, the next day, apart from the ‘creation of a just and inclusive society’ Mr. Reggie Bhagwandin claims that the PPP has done all that Lincoln claimed it has not done. ‘His Excellency President Irfaan Ali has had quite an impressive list of achievements …. The ongoing social and economic development in the areas of housing, education, health, agriculture, transformative mega projects, poverty alleviation.’ The one thing he has against the president is his not appointing a substantive chancellor and chief justice.

Note that the two currently acting chancellor and chief justice have not been appointed because Africans are not trusted by the Indian-supported oligarchy of the PPP. Indeed, I am not certain if Mr. Bhagwandin is demanding their immediate appointment or if he is saying that, after two decades of acting, a prior assessment should be made before they are confirmed.  However, whether or not the PPP has accomplished the desirable outcomes Lewis and Bhagwandin identified, an autocratic governance framework could deliver these largely materialistic outcomes. (KN: 02/04/2025)

In ‘How to Save Democracy’ a statement by the author, Laura Gamboa, is very relevant to the situation in Guyana. ‘At a minimum, democracies should afford citizens the opportunity to form and express their preferences and have them weighted equally in government. To do so, citizens must enjoy individual rights such as freedom of association, freedom of expression, and freedom of movement.’  Checks and balances must exist to guarantee those rights and prevent their being abused ‘under the guise of majoritarian support… people must be able to participate in government on an equal footing.’ Further, ‘(T)he willingness to bypass the law, defy courts, and weaponize state institutions to punish opponents threatens political participation and … democracy.’ (FA. 31/03/2025).

Learning from those who have fought autocracies, Gamboa advises pro-democracy forces to coordinate to defend and expand their institutional powers and wield them to obstruct authoritarian agendas, strengthen grassroots resistance, and protect their own against the use of ‘soft’ forms of repression – such as lawsuits, tax audits, or criminal investigations – to increase the cost of opposing the regime as these measures are strong incentives for people to step aside, with some even willing to join the regime.

As is the case in Guyana, where today the PPP and its associates have captured the state, Gamboa observed that the erosion of democracy usually happens gradually as some believe that the political situation will change at the next elections and maintain a business-as-usual attitude with the government. ‘Instead of leveraging their resources to make a stand and hamper the administration’s power grabs, they have opted to accommodate it … acquiescing to demands to support the government’s agenda when faced with various threats. The result is that the more power authoritarian(s) accumulate, the harder it is to mount an effective resistance.’

Opposition groups usually have resources, ample opportunities to fight back and are more likely to succeed if ithey act early. Resisting the erosion of democracy is more of a marathon than a sprint and such groups must also protect and seek to expand their resources for the fights ahead. Oppositions should use their institutional resources to delay, obstruct, and if possible, stop the incumbent’s consolidation of power. Although social mobilisation does not always work, nonviolent struggle is a powerful tool.

It has been estimated that just 40% of nonviolent movements between 1960 and 2010 achieved their aims, and since 2010 that figure has fallen to less than 34%. ‘[W]ell-organized social movements and civil society groups can shelter democratic institutions, mobilize voters, and increase the costs of antidemocratic behaviour. Protesters must use creative tactics, stay active for long periods, and retain public support by eschewing violence even when they face government repression.’

Of course, Gamboa’s advice is intended for countries like the United States of America that still have an effective public opinion and strong political institutions: local responses need to be properly contextualised. Good democratic governance must be generally inclusive and seek the expansion of individual freedom at democratically determined appropriate level of material development. The choice between the levels of freedom and development should at the very least be firmly rooted in a liberal democratic setting. The autocratic nature of Guyana has been forged within its ethnic context and cannot be solved without constitutional mechanisms that properly account for this fact.

Sincerely

Dr. Henry Jeffrey

---

---