The leaderships of the political parties in Guyana talk a good democratic game but do very little to enhance the democratic processes in their own parties; give local people more control over their own lives and over those who claim to represent them nationally. We have already seen that although the Constitution demands it, local government elections have not been held for two decades and the processes by which the party lists for national and local elections are created and who will become MPs are clouded in mystery.
Of course, outside of the archaic, undemocratic foolishness usually referred to as democratic centralism, the members of modern political parties in liberal democratic countries are not usually the handmaidens of oligarchic party leaderships as they are in Guyana.
So far as the PPP is concerned, the toxic mix of democratic centralism, the natural oligarchic tendencies of political organisations and our ethnic context means that it is unashamedly alone in not having to bother too much about local organisational rebellion. It can talk about reform as much as it likes but one thing is certain: it will not be reform to give the local party memberships control either over those who seek to represent them at the national or even local levels. For example, the PPP was far more reluctant than the PNC to allow independent local groups to run in local government elections and control their own areas. It appears to have a preference for centrally imposed so-called independent management committees. Thus, the new reforms that party promises will focus upon mobilisation strategy and tactics, i.e., how to get more people to support the current leadership at the next elections!
The PNC/APNU was congratulated by many when, in its attempt to remake itself after its bad showing in the 2006 general and regional elections, it attempted to give its membership a greater say over the selection of its presidential candidates for the 2011 elections. This was however marred by controversy when it appeared that the party leaders had to strike as the results were slipping out of the hands of their preferred candidate. Since then there have been controversies over candidate selection (Mr. Aubrey Norton) and treatment (Ms. Vanessa Kissoon) that suggest that there is a level of change (having to do with how candidates for member of parliaments are selected) that is ripe for consideration and implementation.
As is prevalent in democratic countries, local party membership and supporters need to take control of those who will represent them at the national level. The fact that APNU could organise a primary-type arrangement for the choice of its presidential candidate is a clear demonstration that this kind of arrangement could now take place at the local level. There is nothing whatsoever preventing any political party from subdividing the country into sixty-five constituencies and then placing upon its list for the general and national elections those persons who have won local primaries.
Of course, this kind of arrangement will present a conceptual challenge to the democratic centralism practised by the PPP for, in that construct, those at the local level should only have the most indirect impact upon the national level. This should not however be a challenge for the other two major parties. Indeed, although the American-type primary may be the simplest to implement, experience elsewhere has shown that the national leadership can utilise various approaches to strengthen its party in many important ways. As the examples given below suggest, in our context where the parties have problems with ethnic, gender, disability and other levels of political participation, local constituency participation and/or control of the selection process of those wanting to become members of parliament could prove most useful.
British politics is based upon a first-past-the-post constituency arrangement and political parties have a long history of various levels of constituency control of the selection of members of parliament. For example, after a process of assessment, prospective Conservative party candidates are placed on a centrally created approved list and traditionally these, together with local hopefuls, could have applied to a vacant local constituency. But in order to increase the diversity of parliamentary candidates, enhance public participation and engagement in politics, ensure that candidates have the requisite skills and competencies and minimize conflict between party leaders and grassroots members, the three main political parties – Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat – have reformed their candidate selection processes.
On becoming leader of the Conservative party in 2005, David Cameron, decided to move quickly to increase the number of women and ethnic minority Conservative MPs. Based upon positive discrimination, the party created a new “A List” of preferred priority candidates from which local associations could select their parliamentary candidates. According to one assessment the “A List played an important role in increasing the diversity on the Conservative benches: 23 female A Listers entered the Commons in 2010 (along with 13 other new female MPs). Also, out of nine newly elected BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) MPs, five were A Listers, with just one BAME A List candidate defeated at the election. … The A-List can therefore be judged a success in its aim of increasing diversity” (Williams, Rhys & Akash Paun – 2011 – “Party people How do – And how should – British political Parties select their parliamentary candidates,” Institute of Government).
The British parties also attempted to create more transparent assessment processes. Candidates were expected to be vetted by panels consisting of at least one independent assessor and are required to do oral, written and other tests and only if successful are they permitted to apply to a constituency for selection as its member of parliament.
Ethnic politics is largely responsible for the general membership docility in our political parties. Any suggestion of innovation the leaderships believe they would not be able to control is easily translated to the membership as an attempt to maneuver their party and ethnic group out of office. The PPP is ossified in an ideological time capsule but there is nothing stopping the members of the other parties from demanding immediate changes to give them more control over the selection of those who wish to represent them at all levels of the political process.
