By now no one can be in any doubt that the election season is upon us. If it is exhausting the average Guyanese already, imagine its impact by the time we hit 2011. At this rate, come January next year the electorate won’t want to hear the word ‘politics’ ever again, let alone listen to any diatribe the politicians might be spewing. But in this country the dominant parties – the current ruling party especially – have tended to operate on the simple principle that people really can’t think for themselves (or at any rate, shouldn’t be allowed to), and that an extended period of indoctrination is essential before they will mark their ballot papers in the desired way.
So prior to the population’s quinquennial assignation with the ballot box, some familiar shibboleths do the rounds, along with the customary well-worn myths and the dubious historical recitations. It is not that the serious parties have not always dutifully produced manifestos outlining their policies on such occasions, it is just that these were usually treated as pro forma documents, while in their encounters with the faithful – more especially in informal situations such as bottom houses – they transmitted messages of an entirely different tenor.
It was the President who this time unofficially kicked off the 2011 campaign with his visit to Buxton, catching the disorganized opposition completely unawares. And this despite the fact that the voting public still does not know who the various presidential candidates will be – not least the PPP candidate – let alone what vision for the future they will offer us.
Even before this, however, there were indications that the government was already in election mode. Its grip on state resources allows it to distribute funding, etc, at times of its choosing to various communities, especially Amerindian ones; and as is well known, the indigenous vote is vital to its ambitions of returning to office.
The AFC has proposed that as in India, a government should not be allowed to embark on any new projects in the official run-up to an election. This would to all appearances be a sensible ban. However, if a campaign season at an unofficial level lasts for a year or more, the official campaign period between the announcement of a date and an actual election may sometimes not be so critical in terms of ‘influencing’ voters by distributing largesse sourced from taxpayer funds. Having said that, however, it does not mean that a moratorium on new state projects or funding allocations is not desirable during a campaign period; it is just to observe that in a country like this one, its effect might not always be as great as one would wish. It should be added that as in some other countries, it is the President who chooses the election date, which again gives the incumbent and/or his party a built-in advantage.
Outside of the official campaign period, control on government distributing funds with an eye to the ballot, rather than as part of a larger developmental policy which has been made public, depends on ensuring in the first instance that it observes the law in relation to the Consolidated Fund, which is monitored by Parliament. The case of the lotto funds, among several other improprieties, has been given a great deal of publicity, not least by this paper’s Business Page columnist, Mr Christopher Ram, who has also highlighted the weaknesses of the Audit Office. Good governance in terms of the nation’s finances, so the President does not have access to what in effect could function as a slush fund, would obviate some of the political consequences of the misuse of public moneys.
Similarly, a local government system where the various bodies have a good measure of independence of decision-making, and a fiscal transfer mechanism where funding does not depend on central government whim, would also remove an administration from the temptation of rewarding or neglecting a community with electoral motives in mind. It is significant that it was the intransigence of the PPP on local government reform issues which delayed the passage of the full suite of legislation in that area, and by extension, has necessitated the postponement yet again of the local government elections.
The AFC had also called for campaign finance reform, while at a regional level, the OAS will soon be presenting model legislation dealing with campaign and party financing to Latin American and Caribbean nations. The PPP has so far shown no appetite for this kind of reform, partly no doubt because its advertising budget during the last pre-election period was so much larger than that of any of its rivals and it would like to retain that pre-eminence. Presumably it would not want to reveal the identities of its donors either, as perhaps, other parties would wish to avoid doing too. Its reluctance to countenance reform of campaign financing, however, has not inhibited it from accusing other parties of accepting money from dubious sources.
At this stage, the PPP, whoever its presidential candidate turns out to be, is unlikely to be prepared to countenance any kind of reform which might jeopardize its built-in advantage. Where electoral matters are concerned, a level playing field is the last thing which it seeks. It will be even more inflexible if it is getting feedback on the ground that there is considerable apathy about the election among the voters. The opposition has already expressed this view, and while Mr Ramotar has denied it, saying his party has never been so popular, the PPP must be a little uneasy in view of the 2006 election, which had the lowest turn-out of any free and fair national ballot in this country. If privately the party is afraid that apathy may impact on its share of the vote, it may have decided to start on the campaign trail early in order to generate some enthusiasm.
The problem is, as indicated above, all it might achieve in the end is to turn people off. We have been saturated with politics for more than half a century; being in eternal election mode is both tiresome and tiring.
