My last three articles focused on the need to radically reform the undemocratic/illiberal nature of the PPP, rooted as it is in old and misunderstood autocratic doctrines such as democratic centralism and vanguard party. Given that we still live in an essentially liberal context, one of the mistakes we make when referring to our political parties is to speak of them as if they were liberal parties, although if some thought is given to the issue, we know that they are not. It is much like using the concept of marriage in a comparative discourse between the United States of America and Saudi Arabia without acknowledging the fundamental differences between the institution in each country.
Secrecy is at a premium in PPP-type political parties and therefore, it is no surprise that Mr. Ralph Ramkarran’s continued outspokenness has raised concerns among the oligarchs about his reliability. Indeed, it is only because the need for secrecy so far outweighs the importance of policy that although, by the party’s own words, there “is no fundamental disagreement on any policy issue”, Mr. Ramkarran could have been so badly abused. Of course, one is also left to wonder about the nature of the usual open and frank discussions in the PPP if there “is no fundamental disagreement on any policy issue!”
Not long after the last elections, Mr. Ramkarran informed me that he was thinking of leaving politics for the quiet life and I was one of those who advised against it. I know that Mr. Ramkarran has been one of the liberal voices in the oligarchy and his efforts to get the party to take a public position on the Stabroek News advertisement issue is a signal example of this. In my opinion, where liberal voices are muted or absent from such secretive forums, as is presently the case in Syria, greater atrocities result. Mr. Ramkarran knows well the institution of which he has been a member for so long and in which he has been consistently pressing for reforms. Only a few weeks ago, he indicated to me that if he did not stop writing he would run afoul of the PPP. So said so done!
Though my last articles have been focusing on the PPP, not for one moment should we believe that the PNC/APNU has rid itself of its own archaic trappings. While there is no doubting that, in terms of internal democracy, last year it left all its competitors in its trail by adopting a primary type arrangement to choose its presidential candidate, only a few month later, instead of building upon this novel departure, it was again expressing the old Stalinist fear about “factionalism”, which was very much part of the lexicon of its founder leader, Forbes Burnham. And as we speak fears are again being raised about the fairness of the procedures that have been adopted for the impending party leadership battle.
What these latest developments tell us is that it matters not which party we belong to, we must urgently demand their reform. In this and the next article I will briefly indicate what has been the trend of liberal political party development and point a modern way forward.
Parties in liberal democracies have developed through various phases, from the earliest elite parties to mass parties and now to catch-all parties. Elite parties were characterised by limited franchise and local grandees clubbing together to facilitate the election of one of their class to the national parliament. This has also been the case in Guyana, where the colonial elite and the plantocracy, in their political associations, groups and clubs, dominated the politics at the time. Of course, it must not be thought that political competition was absent: it was simply restricted to the ruling “white” group. Some of their political quarrels sound very familiar over a hundred years later and one must only hope that the present opposition does not suffer the fate similar to the one that follows.
In December 1887, the elective governing council gave notice of a motion to reduce the salary of the governor and of another to censure him. The British Colonial Office would stand no such impertinence. Confronted by growing class differentiation and a widespread demand for political reform, it used the occasion to severely fetter all local interests and bolster the power of the governor. As ARF Webber stated: “In the end the compromise reached was not one of which colonists had any reason to be justly proud, … In fact, the law now specifically defines Governor-in-Council to mean ‘the governor acting with but not necessarily in accordance with the advice of the Executive Council while its (the Executive Council) selection was confined to the untrammeled choice of the Governor in person…. Members of the Executive Council need hold no seat in the Legislature; and they held their seat on the Governors smile. Members, moreover, were sworn to secrecy; they could not consult with colonists, nor inform even members of the Legislature of the nature of the measurers which the Governor may have under consideration; and finally even the advice of the Executive Council he was not bound to accept’” (1931, “Centenary History of Guyana”).
As elsewhere, mass parties, the PPP, PNC, United Force, etc, were established in response to an increasing franchise and we are sufficiently familiar with these developments to avoid them detaining us. However, it needs to be repeated that, given the ethnic nature of our society, our party politics and party system are stultified and abnormal. I have argued before that what we have are more ethnic defence groups rather than political parties which can possibly be affected by significant swing votes and need to respond to that possibility.
Given the ethnic nature of our political parties, some have voiced the opinion that a too open process within them could lead to greater ethnic identification and radicalization as the various intraparty groups struggle for control of the organisation. Against this I argue that we live in modern times and that even if attempted in secret, aggressive racism of any form will be recognised and generally condemned. Secondly, over the entire term of their life, all the existing parties have claimed to be multiracial and have sufficient numbers of the other races within them to severely mitigate any such radicalization. In any case, many persons of all races will find such ethnic radicalization abhorrent and alternative homes, such as the Alliance For Change, exist.
Other more modern forms of party structures, such as the so-called “catch-all” party in which class and ideological issues become secondary to making compromises and crafting programmes to stay in government, have evolved, but in my view our parties are still at the deformed mass party level. The question now is: given this concrete reality, how could our political parties become modern political organisations?
