Dear Editor,
The PPP/C’s record on governance and human rights has been sordid. Guyana continues to be ranked as one of the most perceived corrupt countries in the world by Transparency International. There is widespread disregard for institutional integrity. Cases of torture and extra-judicial killings continue to be treated with scant regard, and the ineptitude and mismanagement of state resources have worsened. The security sector is failing miserable. Poverty; unemployment; poor wage distribution; improper health care and education; inadequate water and electricity; poor drainage and irrigation; and high cost of living are among issues that are cause for great dissatisfaction among Guyanese. It is quite evident that the arrogance of power and the attitude of invincibility at the polls on the part of the PPP/C government have become entrenched.
Similarly as in 1992, Guyana is in desperate need of change. Therefore, the question is which opposition political party is prepared to win the 2011 general elections. It is my opinion that the political environment exists to bring about a change; however, I am not particularly Pollyannaish about the ability of the more significant political parties to conduct the type of political campaign necessary to bring about such change. One of the flaws of political campaigns in Guyana is the short period in which they are conducted, usually six months prior to the elections. Notwithstanding the financial constraints, such short campaigns are wholly inadequate for organizing the electorate and for message dissemination. Another flaw is the fact that political parties conduct campaigns based on the historical pattern of organizing and mobilization largely within their ethnic constituencies. Since 1992 the opposition has not rigorously contested some areas where traditional Indian Guyanese supporters of the PPP reside. The belief that voting is strictly along racial lines is such that political campaigns are negligent in considering those marginally disaffected voters. More often these voters do not show up to the polls.
A comparison of the 2001 and 2006 elections is very revealing if GECOM figures are to be believed, and I have no reason not to take them seriously. In 2001, 440,185 people were registered to vote, and in 2006 this number increased to 492,369, an increase of 52,184. In 2001 the PPP/C won the elections with 44 per cent of the number of registered voters while in 2006 they won with 37 per cent of registered voters, but 54 per cent of those who chose to vote. While 89 per cent of registered voters voted in 2001 only 68 per cent voted in 2006. Since 1992, Guyana has had a very high rate of voter turn-out, with the exception of 2006. The questions that need to be asked are: (a) Why was there a 21 per cent drop in those going to the polls? (b) Why did the PPP/C win with just 37 per cent of the total number of registered votes? And (c) Why were the combined opposition parties only able to attract 30 per cent of the registered voters?
Two reasons can be argued for the sharp drop off in voters from 2001 to 2006. One is a high rate of migration between the registration period and the election, and the other is apathy and inertia among the electorate. I am more inclined to suspect the latter since the percentage decline is too drastic when compared to other years. Apathy among the electorate has been a growing problem, especially among young people. Young people make up almost 50% of the electorate. In 2006 young people as a significant voting bloc were absent. The political party that is more efficient in developing an early programme to involve this group in the election process can win the general election.
In addition, the opposition has done an extremely poor job in getting their supporters to the polls. In any election, potential voters must be encouraged and assisted in getting to the polls with all the information made available to them. The opposition cannot rely on the state to complete this endeavour.
Moreover, the PPP/C victory at the polls in 2006 was due largely to a grossly disorganized opposition, with the exception of the Alliance For Change whose showing at the polls was impressive given its short history as a political party. However, its level of activism in the post-election period was little short of disappointing. Nonetheless, the AFC I believe has the greater chance of upsetting the PPP/C in 2011. It remains the only major opposition party with credible leadership and its approach to multiracial involvement is still attractive.
In addition, the opposition must overcome its financial constraints in political organizing, which is indeed a major bottleneck, especially when it must compete in an environment where the incumbent party is very corrupt and uses state resources to conduct their campaigns. It is for this very reason that opposition organizing efforts must begin very early in order to raise important issues like fund-raising measures. The diaspora has to be utilized effectively and efficiently in raising funds, and in a larger area base. The diaspora wants to be involved in the political process in Guyana, but is very shy of being seen only as a resource for fund-raising. The difference between the authoritarian period of the PNC regime and the current unconstitutional authoritarian period of the PPP/C regime is the level of political activism that was engendered in the diaspora. So far the opposition has failed to utilize this interest.
Yours faithfully,
Dennis Wiggins