Democracy in Guyana is equated with voting and so after elections people go back to their lives without realising the vote was just the beginning.
This culture of accepting electoral democracy as democracy has serious implications and its practice in Guyana has come to mean “Elite rule,” which requires us citizens to be relatively passive, uninvolved and deferential to the elites who govern our country. Elite rule, in the sense that power is increasingly centralised in a small clique; a party of privileged folks whose actions are more monarchic than democratic.
This kind of leadership was allowed to take root in our nation because we vote and lose interest; because we transfer the power we hold in our hands for a period of five years and forget; and more importantly, because the system is designed so Guyana could be a country of ‘elites’ and ‘the ordinary.’
Simply look at how our leaders behave, look as far back as 1966 if you wish, and you will come to understand the dangers of a political system where the will of fifty percent—majority rule—is boldly interpreted as the will of an entire nation.
I have come to realise that the “Republic” is less “Cooperative” and more conflictual, because of our concept of democracy. Majority rule has done nothing for us but further polarize a nation struggling with deep divisions since its post-independence years.
“What is democracy?” Aubrey Norton asked some years ago during my first politics lecture at the University of Guyana.
I remember sitting there thinking, “I’m not sure.”
The uncertainty then was clouded by my own limited readings and a disinterest in assessing democracy in my country. Today, there is no uncertainty; doubt has been replaced by
focused readings, an interest in governance and objective assessments.
If Aubrey Norton were to ask me that question again, I would tell him there is no fixed definition of democracy and realistically it is not perfect, but the majoritarian-style democracy as practiced in Guyana is not democracy. It is elective dictatorship.
Call me irrational for saying it, but I have no other way of explaining a democracy with an elected government that is essentially free to rule however it pleases, constrained only by a constitutional term in office, and in some instances, existing legal principles.
Majoritarian democracy or majority rule is a British idea which we continue to hold onto and in a divided society like ours, it will never work. Not only is it problematic, it is also dangerous in the sense that power lies in the bosom of a ‘few’ and year after year it corrupts. Perhaps I should say a plural society like ours, but the truth is what it is. There is serious need
for reconciliation across Guyana; we need to first admit our fears and speak of our distrust before accepting we share one space, similar trials and one nationality.
“Tyranny of the Majority” is how Alexis de Tocqueville described it and as demonstrated year after year in our country, democracy has been replaced by egotism and power. “All governments are potential tyrants,” Tocqueville said, and I would add that give them majority rule and it’s no longer a case of probability, it is certainty.
There is no political culture in our country emphasising the fundamental importance of respect for citizen voices as a pre-requisite for a functioning democracy. In this same vein, I will ask where is the mutual respect, compromise and tolerance that are needed for a democratic polity to operate in the interest of all?
Tolerance as a social principle is absent from our society and because of how our democracy works, there is no balance between power and responsibility. Further, minority rights are crushed in the name of “the will of the majority.” Whatever happened to consensus?
The time has long passed for our democracy to progress beyond “majority rule” to “consensus rule” and for power to be de-centralised. When I say “consensus rule” I am advocating the rule as explained by theorists such as Arend Lijphart, which seeks to maximise the size of “the majority” and aims for broader participation in government and broad agreements on the policies that government should pursue.
Every decision our government makes affects us, whether we choose to believe it or not, which is why agreement should come from eighty percent or even seventy percent, not fifty percent. We should focus on integration and not exclusion, which is why I am against majority rule; it characterizes exclusion.
Thus, I am hoping a change will come to our country; to our democracy after a new government is formed. Perpetuating a system where the will of the people is taken to mean the will of fifty percent focuses on opposition rather than consensus, and we have nothing to gain from living eternally divided.
Lijphart wrote about the dangers of majority rule, saying it spells “majority dictatorships” and civil strife rather than democracy, and our history in Guyana painfully relates to his observations.
