The late eminent political theorist Samuel P Huntington claimed that, ‘Elections, open, free and fair, are the essence of democracy, the inescapable sine qua non’, and this is essentially what the PPP and its supporters have always had in mind. However, Huntington went on to argue that, ‘Governments produced by elections may be inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted, irresponsible, dominated by special interests, and incapable of adopting policies demanded by the public good. These qualities make such governments undesirable but they do not make them undemocratic. … Democracy is one public virtue, not the only one, and the relation of democracy to other public virtues and vices can only be understood if democracy is clearly distinguished from the other characteristics of political systems.’
He also identified good governance as requiring ‘effective citizen control over policies, responsible government, honesty and openness in politics, informed and rational deliberation, equal participation and power’. Using these virtues as a backdrop, in 2014, I referred to the PPP/C as a democracy without political virtues and therefore one that should be removed from office (SN: 30/04/2014).
Now, as the government of Nicolas Maduro in neighbouring Venezuela is calling upon the United States of America to stop its imperialist meddling in its internal affairs, our leader of the opposition, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, who was in charge of this democracy without political virtues for some seventeen years and whose regime was not so long ago pounding the US with a feral blast for involvement in the internal affairs of Guyana, is begging it for help to prevent the APNU+AFC government from entrenching itself!
He hopes that the Carter Center, whose representatives were here on a fact-finding mission, will share its report with other organisations and governments, especially the United States government. He wants the international community to do to operatives of the current regime what they are doing to Maduro’s officials, namely impose hard sanctions, such as taking away travel visas and blocking travel for those persons found complicit. The US government has also recognised the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, Mr. Juan Guaido, as the rightful president of Venezuela, and I am certain that Mr. Jagdeo would not rule out similar action in Guyana if the coalition government becomes ‘unconstitutional’.
It continues to have its opponents but the notion that countries should intervene to protect the domestic population of other states has been around since the heyday of state sovereignty. Thus, in 1758, Emmerich de Vattel in his Law of Nations argued that, ‘If a prince, by violating the fundamental laws, gives his subjects a lawful cause for resisting him; if, by his insupportable tyranny, he brings on a national revolt against him, any foreign power may rightfully give assistance to an oppressed people who ask for its aid. . . . To give help to a brave people who are defending their liberties against an oppressor by force of arms is only the part of justice and generosity. Hence, whenever such dissension reaches the state of civil war, foreign Nations may assist that one of the two parties which seems to have justice on its side. But to assist a detestable tyrant, or to come out in favor of an unjust and rebellious people, would certainly be a violation of duty.’
Importantly for our purposes, in 2005, the United Nations World Summit adopted a Responsibility to Protect resolution that seeks to protect populations against war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide. The United Nations Security Council is entitled to use any means – mediation, economic sanctions, and military action – to ‘restore international peace and security to prevent atrocity, crimes and to protect civilians from their occurrence’.
I suspect that it is now a standard aspect of diplomatic culture but speaking to possible US intervention some time ago, one writer asserted that, ‘To maintain the credibility of our commitment to the democratic side, we also need to be discriminating in identifying which side, if either, has the better claim to that label. While there will always be problems in drawing such a line, our traditions and values and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights provide clear benchmarks: respect for civil liberties and free elections, and commitment to democratic methods of government’ (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1985-09-01/right-intervene)
The above suggests that what Mr. Jagdeo is requesting of the international democratic community is much more complex than his emphasis upon immediate elections. When these countries sit down to consider the situation in Guyana, they will not simply consider elections but the likely outcome of those elections, and this is particularly so in our situation where majority rule has little currency. They will not be interested in substituting what is bad for something worse, but if possible, would want to craft an intervention that will lead to the development of an appropriate modern democratic regime.
The situation in Venezuela is less complicated than Guyana. For almost two decades, the government of Venezuela has been in office, has presided over the collapse of the economy, increasing autocracy and the near starvation and exodus of some three million of its people. It is obvious that the government of this resource-rich country is finding it extremely difficult to protect its own people, and the international community is attempting to provide a fresh alternative.
One year into the current regime, I stated that, ‘What we have today is a democracy (meaning merely majority rule) without the important political virtue of inclusiveness’ (‘Another democracy without political virtue. SN: 08/06/2016). Since then, considering the path we have travelled and where we are at present, the decline in the quality of democracy has been such that a regime that promised to unite all Guyana is now involved in all manner of questionable behaviour to hold on to office.
Thus the situation in Guyana is quite different. The coalition is clearly not ready for an election and calling one at this time opens the real possibility of returning to office a party that only recently tried to establish ethnic dominance and which has said little since being out of government to indicate that it has had a change of heart. The current regime has not proven much better but has in its favour that it and the tribe it represents have only been in office for four years.
A constitutional crisis is perhaps just what is required for the international community to be in a position to exert sufficient pressure to bring the warring factions to their senses. Both the PPP/C and APNU+AFC badly need its support. The PPP/C has nowhere else to turn for support against the coalition government and APNU+AFC must win the next elections since it failed to fulfill its primary promise to constitutionally institutionalise its core supporters in the system of national governance within one year of taking office. The APNU+AFC is only playing for time and using the courts and the incapacity of the Guyana Elections Commission to hold the elections to do so.
The PPP/C appeals for sanctions against the regime will more likely than not receive the usual lukewarm reception befitting a tainted and yet unreformed leadership unless it recognises and is more visibly prepared to accommodate a new consensual democratic system.
