True democracy cannot exist where consultation replaces authority

May 19, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – The debate over Article 13 of Guyana’s Constitution is not simply about words. It is about political power, who controls the state, and whether ordinary people truly have authority in national decision-making. The defenders of “inclusionary democracy” present it as a progressive and modern idea. But in reality, inclusionary democracy and consultative democracy are bourgeois concepts that create the illusion of participation while leaving real power untouched in the hands of the ruling elite.

Supporters of the present constitution argue that Article 13 is almost identical to the 1980 version. On the surface, this appears true because both articles speak about increasing opportunities for citizens to participate in decision-making. But the crucial difference lies in the political philosophy behind the wording.

The 1980 Constitution declared that the principal objective of the political system was to “extend socialist democracy.” The present constitution replaced this with the goal of establishing an “inclusionary democracy.” That single change transformed the meaning entirely.

Socialist democracy, whatever its practical weaknesses or contradictions, was rooted in the idea that working people should become directly involved in the management of the state. It aimed to move beyond traditional liberal democracy, where citizens vote every few years and then hand over power to politicians and bureaucrats. Under the socialist model, there was at least an attempt to create structures through which workers, local democratic organs, and community representatives could participate in governance.

Burnham’s system drew heavily from the Cuban model. Institutions such as the National Congress of Local Democratic Organs and the Supreme Congress of the People were meant to deepen political involvement beyond parliament alone. Critics may argue that these institutions concentrated power or weakened the separation of powers, and there is truth in that criticism. However, the ideological intention was still different from what exists today. The aim was to extend socialist participation, not merely to consult people.

The present constitution abandoned this orientation and replaced it with inclusionary democracy. This sounds attractive because the word “inclusionary” suggests fairness, openness, and broad participation. But the reality is far less democratic than the language implies.

Inclusionary democracy is essentially consultative democracy. It does not transfer power to the people. It only allows people to voice opinions while final decisions remain firmly in the hands of political elites. Citizens are invited to meetings, consultations, forums, and discussions, but they do not exercise real authority over the state.

This is why Article 13 emphasises participation in matters “that directly affect their well-being.” That phrase is revealing. It limits participation to specific issues rather than giving citizens a substantive role in the overall management of national affairs. People are consulted about roads, drainage, schools, or community projects, but they are not empowered to shape the wider political and economic direction of the country.

 

This is the essence of bourgeois democracy. The masses are encouraged to feel involved without actually controlling power. Consultation becomes a public relations exercise designed to legitimise decisions already made by the ruling class.

When government officials hold consultations before constructing a road or implementing a project, this is presented as democratic engagement. In truth, it is often little more than political theatre. The government listens politely, takes notes, and then proceeds with decisions largely determined beforehand. The consultation provides a stamp of public approval without surrendering meaningful control.

The middle class and professional classes are especially attracted to inclusionary democracy because it gives them influence without requiring mass political support. Small groups, NGOs, academics, consultants, and activists can claim a “stake” in governance simply because a policy affects them. Four or five individuals can organise themselves into a committee or organisation and demand consultation. This creates an illusion of broad participation while bypassing the larger question of democratic representation.

At the same time, the structure of the Guyanese State remains deeply centralised. The constitution still concentrates enormous authority in the executive presidency. Full executive power rests with the president, and even cabinet ministers operate mainly as advisers. They cannot easily challenge or overrule presidential authority.

This exposes the contradiction at the heart of inclusionary democracy. How can a system claim to be inclusionary when ultimate power is concentrated in one office? Real democracy requires the sharing and decentralisation of power, not simply public consultation.

The result is a culture of micromanagement and political dependency. Ministers become hesitant to act independently because they fear crossing the wishes of the president. Decision-making becomes centralised around one dominant figure while consultations with the public continue as symbolic exercises.

In this sense, inclusionary democracy functions as a mask. It gives the appearance of participation while preserving elite control. The people are consulted, but they do not govern. They are included in discussions, but excluded from real power.

True democracy cannot exist where consultation replaces authority. Real democratic participation means giving citizens direct influence over the political and economic direction of society, not merely inviting them to talk-shops after decisions have already been shaped by the ruling elite.

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

---

• Guyana’s Constitution, Peeping Tom, Political Power, True democracy

---