Guyana’s politicians have failed us. Operating behind the barrier of our two major political cartels, they are answerable to their parties first and foremost, and not to the voters or even, in a more profound sense, to the best interests of the country. At an individual level, they do not, of course, owe very much to the electors, because in the final analysis, the latter do not choose them to sit in Parliament; the cartels do, and therefore to secure themselves a favoured spot on a party ‘list’, they have to conform to its perceptions and methods.
The fact that our parties are for the most part ethnically based has merely entrenched our pernicious system. In addition to appealing to ethnicity with a sub-text of ideology at certain periods, they tend to protect their own; it is the reward for loyalty. As such, the arrangement is not conducive to transparency or honesty or responsibility or adherence to the rules. Neither can it always be relied on to afford recognition to competence within its ranks, although where that is concerned, much depends also on the party leader.
As for the electorate, it votes largely along ethnic lines not just to put a favoured party into office, but just as important if not more so, to keep the other party out. As a consequence, party members are not held by their constituency to the standards which might be applied in more regular democracies; even morality has a party bias. The other side will be accused of unethical behaviour, but a blind spot operates where the unprincipled behaviour displayed by one’s own side is concerned. It makes instituting a culture of accountability which applies across the board irrespective of political adherence, a taxing task.
We have lived with the system now for more than 50 years, and the overwhelming majority of Guyanese have known no other. We have made a few tentative steps forward: After 24 years of rigged elections by the PNC, the year 1992 saw the accession of the PPP/C to office in what was largely seen as a free and fair poll. That party has exulted in the return of democracy ever since, but it must be said that while that election restored the necessary framework for progress on the political front, it was not accompanied by most of the other measures necessary for the opening up of the society, let alone for resolving our underlying ethno-political dilemma. It was, so to speak, a technical advance premised on the unspoken assumption by the PPP that its plurality would allow it to win elections indefinitely.
Under former president Bharrat Jagdeo in particular, it evinced a sense of entitlement – something it must be said which the PNCR exhibits too, although it has different origins – and the impression that the PPP governed in the interest of only one half of the electorate was strongly reinforced. Furthermore, the party was obsessed with blanket control, which militated against the evolution of independent entities in the country, and caused the few putative civil society bodies which existed and which could not be politically penetrated, to be branded as opposition organisations. One of the most unfortunate legacies which the PNC reinforced by the PPP has left us, is the politicisation of the entire society, so that no one is seen by either party as genuinely independent, uncommitted, objective or neutral. The corollary to this is, of course, that anything anyone says is believed to be tarnished by political partisanship.
The Constitution was subjected to amendment in 2001 following the Herdmanston Accord, which was the next small step forward. This theoretically would have been an opportunity for more fundamental reform, but perhaps the political universe had not yet evolved far enough for that, and in any case, the PNCR arguably did not submit anything as radical as they could have done. Perhaps, like the PPP/C, they were hoping they could get back into office within a constitutional skeleton which favoured the incumbent.
The first significant step − or at least, so it seemed at the time – came with the 2015 election which was won by the APNU coalition, comprising the PNCR and some very small parties, in alliance with the AFC. In addition to a possible urban middle class vote, the latter brought with it a number of Indian voters who were disillusioned with the PPP’s 23 years in office, and had chosen to give that party a reprimand. This certainly was a new development in our political history, marking as it did, a dent in the monolithic nature of our party structure, and more important, giving the PNCR a stake in a genuinely democratic mode. After all, it demonstrated more effectively than anything else could have done, that the PPP could be voted out of office in a conventional way, their numbers notwithstanding. This appeared to be an important development.
Unfortunately, the coalition blew its opportunity for a new beginning, however tentative that beginning may have turned out to be. That, however, on its own is not what has brought us to the present point, and the regressive route which APNU has elected to follow. Far from understanding the implications of what happened in 2015, the PNCR led by President David Granger is opening itself to allegations of déjà vu where elections are concerned. Both he and the party will pay a heavy price, whereas the AFC, which has given its full support to its major partner in the government, will find that it effectively has wiped itself off the electoral map.
The issue as everyone is aware, is the vote of no confidence of December 21 and the refusal of APNU to accept the consequences of that vote, to abide by the Constitution, and to accept the ruling of Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire after a flimsy case against it was brought. What to all reasonable persons seems incredible, is that the government is taking the matter to appeal.
The reason for all this irrationality is unlikely to be what the PPP was at an earlier stage constantly rabbiting on about, i.e. an intention to rig the next election in the old-fashioned way; those days are long gone and under the present circumstances it would be impossible for any party to get such a poll accepted internationally. No government in this country would long survive the ramifications of such a tainted electoral victory. Given the no confidence vote, the aim at the present time would seem to be to delay the election for as long as possible past the three-month time frame required by the Constitution.
Having said that, there is some evidence for suspecting that President Granger might have had it in mind to delay the 2020 election anyway, possibly in the hope that when the oil started flowing and the economy began to recover (as it was thought), his government would have greater appeal in the eyes of the electorate. Whatever the reason, his dilatoriness over the appointment of judges, and in particular, the strange gyrations in relation to the appointment of a Chancellor and Chief Justice, raise questions. But most of all, there is his unacceptable unilateral appointment of the Chairman of Gecom, some time before the no confidence vote, which took the government off guard in any case.
Neither of our main parties has ever wanted an elections commission which is genuinely neutral and independent, and for reasons outlined above, nor do they believe that is possible. President Granger clearly wanted someone in the chair who would reflect the coalition’s interests, and given the vote last week when Chairman James Patterson aligned with the government appointees on key matters, there can be no further doubt about his intentions.
As our Page One Comment on Thursday said, there has been no convincing explanation as to why elections were not possible in three months, considering that local government elections had been held without difficulty in November 2018, and the voters’ list was still valid. It remains valid until April 30. Now the Chief Election Officer is giving a minimum of 148 days for the holding of a general election and the compilation of a new voters’ list.
In addition, APNU is engaged in legal contortions in its postponement exercise which in the old days, the PNC used to be notoriously good at when it had a doubtful wicket to defend. One of these concerns budgetary allocations for Gecom, and the procedure in relation to obtaining funding for national elections. The Ministry of Finance is said to have advised that it would have to go back to Parliament. As we reported in our Friday edition, however, this has been disputed by former Auditor General Anand Goolsarran.
While with the election of Mr Irfaan Ally as its presidential candidate, the PPP appears to be still imprisoned in its unreformed worldview which will no doubt damage it in the long run, no party has inflicted more self-harm than the PNCR. Unless it comes back as a junior partner (or at best primus inter pares) where coalitions become the norm sometime in the future, one wonders how it will rebound from this. Had it followed President Granger’s first instincts, and accepted the consequences of the vote of no confidence, it would have undermined its critics and proved it was a committed player in the democratic game. As it is, we have taken a step backwards. After all this time, how can the PNCR not know that history does not have a rewind button?
