Born in questionable democratic circumstances in 1992 but with seemingly reckless abandon since the 2011 national and regional elections, the PPP/C regime has proceeded to dangerously reduce the scope of its legitimacy to a point where many more people now believe it to be an illegitimate government.
Legitimacy provides power with authority, allowing us to feel that we are not being forced to act in a given manner but more or less following our own desires as part of the collective will. Governmental power is based upon authority which is itself rooted in general agreement that the government has the right to make certain laws that should be obeyed. This authority is usually backed by the threat of coercion, of which the nation state is the chief purveyor in a defined internationally respected geographical boundary.
Legitimacy “is about the moral grounding of power and therefore involves social and cultural norms and expectations concerning proper behaviour of those that govern the social relationship between rulers and the ruled, the role of trust, reputation and force, and the balance between authority and obeisance” (“Shifts in Governance: Problems of Legitimacy and Accountability”, Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, March 2011, The Hague).
At least two general types of legitimacy may be identified: “input legitimacy” and “output legitimacy.” For democrats, input legitimacy exists because, in various ways, the system provides opportunities for citizens to sanction leaders they do not like. Another form of input legitimacy is based upon the belief that, for whatever reason – race or ethnicity for example – a kind of rule or institution ought to be obeyed (Ibid).
“Output legitimacy” is where a system is considered legitimate because it delivers what the citizens desire. Thus a dictatorship might be considered legitimate because of the belief that it is delivering better economic growth, security etc. than previous or possible alternative regimes. Output legitimacy may be enhanced or diminished depending upon whether the system is thought to be delivering fairly and transparently.
Simply put, a regime can be thought legitimate because of historical, religious or ethnic identity; because people fear an alternative; because of procedures, where the rulers are chosen by people for a certain period; because of results, where the government is thought to be better at providing for the basic needs of the people, and by habit where people become accustomed to obeying the laws of the government (http://www.chsbs.cmich.edu/fattah/courses/introPolSc/ch07 AuthorityLegitimacy.htm).
On none of the above relevant counts has the PPP/C since the death of Cheddi Jagan fared well and its behaviour since 2011 has severely diminished its credentials for calling itself a legitimate democratic government.
Largely, the PPP/C government exists in office upon ethnicity and ethnic fear of the alternative. This means that from the outset a large swath of the population has considered the regime of questionable legitimacy. Indeed, this section tends to regard national elections as little more than ethnic arithmetic.
So far as legitimacy by procedure is concerned, here too the regime is found wanting. Having never hesitated to tell us that the previous PNC government was illegitimate because it was not founded upon majority rule, it now exists because of a dubious constitutional clause that gives the government to the party with the greater plurality.
To compound its tenuous democratic status, the regime is now governing in contradiction to normal democratic norms and practice. Both legislative theory and practice tell us that in democratic parliamentary-type systems, there should be a separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Where the government is a part of the legislature and through party mechanisms is in reality in control of the legislature, the government must resign if it loses a motion of no confidence. As a result, to prevent their having to resign in parliamentary- type systems, political parties are forced into various forms of alliance.
The PPP/C does not have a majority nor has it formed any kind of alliance but it has been able to continue its clearly undemocratic (minority) rule with the aid of the courts. Indeed, it is one of the court rulings, which questioned the authority of the National Assembly to properly scrutinize and make what is essentially a government budget into a national one, that has given rise to the present no-confidence motion against the government and to the sorry state of the PPP sinking further into illegitimacy by delaying the convening of the National Assembly.
On this score, it must be clear to all concerned that had the Clerk of the National Assembly been properly cognizant of and sympathetic to the historical role of parliaments and/or and independent actors, he had sufficient information from various sources at this disposal to rule as the Speaker requested. It is needless for us to attempt to treat these matters as if they are based upon “objective facts”; they are simple interpretations that should take into consideration numerous factors.
For example, it is foolhardy to attempt, as the Clerk has done, to use the term “government” indiscriminately and without distinction.
To think that the “government” which exists in China is similar to the “government” which exists in the United States of America is as nonsensical as to treat a “government” in a parliamentary-type system that controls the majority in the National Assembly as a “government” that does not.
We must not forget also that the regime has been using a plethora of unconvincing excuses not to call constitutionally due local government elections. It is as if it believes that these kinds of constitutional requirements exist at its convenience. So amazed have many been at this unconstitutional and therefore illegitimate act that there is now public speculation as to whether the government will stick to the constitutional timetable for a national elections if it loses the no confidence motion that is before the National Assembly or even the elections required at the end of its constitutionally stipulated term!
In terms of legitimacy by results, try as it might to present itself as being better at providing for the welfare, security and protection of the human rights, etc of its citizens, Guyana has not improved in keeping with the expectations that existed at the start of the 1990s. The result is that most of its citizens are still voting with their feet.
We must congratulate the PPP, for its political strategy – from minority government through recently Sattaur to Nandlall – has been able to transform the mindset of the public from one that was skeptical but still more or less obeisant to its government to one which now awaits with trepidation the further expansion of the scope of its illegitimacy!
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
