Dear Editor,
Sunday Stabroek’s editorial ‘Party script’, which asserts that the election last Thursday for mayor of Georgetown was a “bad day for democracy”, did not quite identity any violations of core democratic principles and practices. In making this claim, I do not ignore that there still may be cause for concern over the election.
Searching for the basis of the paper’s contention, I have to assume that its metaphoric description of the attire of the key players, likened to the plumage of the macaw and the mynah, is not part of the evidence. I likewise consider it a side issue the paper’s displeasure over the reported indecent haste with which APNU councillors stood to move motions and to vote.
So distilled, the bad-day-for-democracy assertion rests on two purported failings: (i) that a single political party (namely, the APNU in its true PNC colours) used its voting majority to determine outcomes and (ii) that voting was done by show of hands instead of by secret ballot.
In essence, the first criticism questions the legitimacy of majoritarian and representative democracy itself. It challenges the right of a party that has secured the most seats in a free and fair election to use that numerical superiority to advance its preferences. But, for better or worse, majority rule has long been a fundamental aspect of Guyana’s adversarial political system.
In addition, the nation agreed, nothwithstanding recent rounds of local government reform, that mayors and deputy mayors are to be elected by and from among councillors, and not directly by citizens. What we saw last Thursday therefore, was our democracy at work as we have designed it.
As its second criticism, Sunday Stabroek condemns the voting by hand instead of by secret ballot and contends that the secret ballot has acquired historical legitimacy in elections. But this legitimacy may relate only to citizens, and it is a settled principle of democracy that their votes should be secret. This secrecy however does not extend to those who represent the people in legislatures, councils and committees, where the established practice is for open voting either by show of hand or by acclamation. Open voting promotes public transparency and accountability. For these reasons, and contrary to Sunday Stabroek’s view, it is more likely than the secret ballot to discourage bribery and external intimidation. But like most good things in politics as in life, it carries downsides; it gives party whips the means to monitor and control representatives.
The party whip system has been a feature of democratic politics as old as political parties themselves. The system can claim to prevent the incapacitating fractionalization of politics. The herding of the flock last Thursday at City Hall, therefore, by using the open vote was nothing unexpected.
The exercise of numerical superiority by a political party and open voting by representatives are time-honoured practices. What may have probably been distressing to Sunday Stabroek was the rawness of the display. The reasons, however, for proclaiming a “bad day for democracy” implicate democracy itself as a bad thing. At the end of the day, democracy prevailed. The duly elected councillors exercised their franchise on behalf of the people following the rules set out in the law.
This is not to contend that democracy at City Hall cannot be enhanced—and it should. We could, for example, enshrine fair rules for tabling and processing motions, mobilize citizens to participate in standing committees, and introduce supermajority vote for key decisions.
All that said, it is high time, however, that the APNU+AFC as a coalition and as individual office holders recognize that perception does matter!
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
