So far as I am concerned, it is inconceivable, particularly in the context where first-come-first-served is the order of the day, that about two days after you would have promised to seat together about fifty relatively important persons at a public event like the Golden Jubilee flag-raising ceremony, you would not have cordoned off a designated section. But whether or not what happened to the PPP/C Members of Parliament at the ceremony was deliberate or just gross mismanagement, it has certainly provided more grist to the PPP/C’s propaganda mill, which has historically presented the PNC as vindictive and spiteful.
Of course, I understand that in our ethnic environment, in terms of political support this event would not matter one jot. Indeed, I have argued elsewhere (Dear PPP, No one cares! SN 27/05/2015) that since ethnic mobilisation in one community tends to benefit the ethnic entrepreneurs in the other, it might well turn out to be a perverse kind of win-win situation for the elites in the two major parties seeking to solidify their traditional support base!
Make no mistake: assuming that the regime did intend to embarrass the PPP/C, it did have ‘good reason’ to want to send a strong message to that party that it was not prepared to sit on its hands when the PPP/C has obviously been behind the Indo-Guyanese boycott of the jubilee celebrations. After all, the coalition has been expending much political capital on its programme to achieve social cohesion, national unity, etc., for which a united jubilee celebration would have, at least optically, been an ideal launching pad. In other words, the leadership of the PPP/C was being told that if you cannot bring your people – indeed, since you are deliberately encouraging them not to participate – you need not come!
The PPP/C also has ‘good reason’ for wanting its supporters to boycott the celebrations. Traditionally, its supporters do not take to the streets in any mass way when the party feels aggrieved, so it has to find other ways to protest. So how could it miss this unique opportunity to show the coalition government that it rules only by a questionable marginal majority and – in the PPP/C’s mantra – is merely de facto?
This has been the way the ethnic elites have historically done business in Guyana. For example, although all national elections since 1992 have been declared free and fair by international observers, after every one of them prior to 2015, PNC supporters cried foul and frequently took to the streets in protest. Indeed, it was opposition street protests after the 1997 general elections that cut short the PPP/C term by about two years, cowed the PPP/C into the Herdmanston Accord, led to constitutional reforms, and possibly sowed the first seeds that convinced important elements in the PPP/C that political/ethnic dominance was the only course if it wished to uphold its democratic right to rule.
My interest in the Jubilee seating event is not about casting blame but because it amply demonstrates the universality of the influences that flow from our political uniqueness. We are soon again to become involved in constitutional reform and it is important that we develop a deep understanding of the vicissitudes of our political condition if we are to theoretically assess the possible consequences of the new arrangement we will be attempting to establish, and thus avoid some of the errors that were made during the 1999/2001 constitutional reform process.
As an example, please remember that that reform set about establishing many modern-type committees and commissions that in a normal polity would have represented a significant effort at enhancing national participation in the political process. But in our condition, without making any noteworthy contribution to a feeling of national inclusivity, the reform allowed the PPP/C to stride the world stage claiming that Guyana has one of the most advanced constitutions in the region!
Of course, this PPP/C claim is nonsense. Firstly, an assessment of whether or not a constitution is more advanced than others can only be sensibly made if the concrete operational conditions are similar, and as I argued last week, our condition is quite unique. Furthermore, whether a constitution is more advanced or not would also depend on its capacity to provide a stable environment that advances national development in a timely manner, and over the last 50 years none of our constitutions has been able to do so.
One would have to be pretty blinkered to conclude that the ‘good reason’ of either the PPP/C or the government in relation to the seating issue is in the national interest. For one thing, neither would help to heal the ethnic divide – quite the contrary. Since I refuse to believe that this was actually the outcome the elites in both parties sought, why did it then happen?
Only last week I noted John Stuart Mill’s comment that representative (democratic) government can only exist in conditions where a ‘united public opinion’ and ipso facto a united understanding of the national interest exists.
The various regimes’ commitment to the national interest has been theoretical and propagandistic. On the whole, none of the governments we have had since independence has ever had to confront a united national public opinion and thus been forced to develop plans that reflect a united national interest. Their very existence depends upon partisan interest, but in supporting their communal interest they alienate rival communities who must seek salvation in their political elites.
The PPP/C seating issue demonstrates in no uncertain terms that when it matters a united public opinion is for the most part non-existent in Guyana. The Indian community believes that the intention of the government was to embarrass the PPP/C and would only grudgingly view the matter as a managerial problem. On the other hand, the African community comes up with every conceivable possibility other than that the event was deliberately staged to send a message to the PPP/C!
Partisan interests are also usually given priority in a normal liberal democratic country, but such interests tend to evolve from a broad cross-section of the country’s population. Given that there can be different views of what constitutes the national interest on any matter, in such countries partisan and national interest are almost conterminous and this is particularly so in an ethnically homogeneous society. But in our divided condition, partisan interest is essentially ethnic communal interest, which does not necessarily reflect the national interest.
The only way to bring some order to this complex situation and assure that national and communal interests are in sync is to establish arrangements that put the elites of the major ethnic communities at the executive decision-making table. As I have argued elsewhere, there are dangers inherent in doing so, but since others have, it is not beyond us to find mitigating solutions to these (Political and Ethnic Dominance in Guyana. (2015) Gateway 2 Dialogs & Kindle). In any case, it does not appear to me that we have much of a choice.
