Writer after writer and speaker after speaker have over decades been calling upon our politicians to, as the legendary businessman, Mr. Yesu Persaud, recently said, ‘put aside tribalism and other differences, in the interest of Guyana being ‘one people, one nation, one destiny’ (KN: 06/04/ 2019). I have consistently argued that while noble, given the nature of our society this amounts to wishful thinking from which little practical effort to accomplish the desired goal can be derived.
Guyana is today as ethnically/politically divided as it has ever been, and some people have even come to the conclusion that this is so because of our persistent harping upon race and ethnicity. Indeed, it is astonishing that the level of disillusionment appears to have even taken hold of the venerable Mr. Persaud, who took the opportunity to ask, ‘What are [politicians] really doing for you, the people’ Guyanese public should shoulder the burden of making the nation a better one for future generations. ‘Do you need politicians?’’ (Ibid).
Persistently talking and analysing race and ethnicity is the only way we can understand and find solutions to the problem, and regardless of how poor or rich a country is, someone or some group – call them what you want – will have to decide who gets what, when and how. Whether politicians act sensibly, competently and equitably is the stuff of political relations, and we do demand that they not only act in the people’s interest but should do so democratically, that is consult the people to understand and gain legitimacy for the policies they intend to implement.
Where Mr. Persaud was correct was in cautioning Guyanese, ‘You’re hearing of these trillions of dollars to come from the oil rush. [We need to ask] how it’s going to be used. Will the people participate?’ This is a fundamental question and he also appeared to have conceptualized democracy as both a normative ideal and as a practical decision method of doing politics. Thus, it appears to me that when the ethnic nature of our society is coupled to the democratic boundary issue it again exposes how multidimensional our political problems are and suggests that unless radical changes are made the benefits going to the masses of people will continue to be minimal.
Taken as a normative ideal, democracy needs only be informed and justified by one’s normative judgment. However, ‘Someone who takes democracy as a practical decision method justified by a normative ideal doesn’t hold that democracy is the foundation of legitimate government but that its legitimacy derives from the normative ideal.’ Democratic government is legitimate in so far as it accomplishes the policies upon which it was elected. ‘Thus, for utilitarians democracy is justified if and only if it maximizes people’s well-being as compared to alternative decision methods. For Rawlsian (John Rawls liberal political philosopher) liberals, democracy is justified if it is the best decision procedure for the safeguarding of basic civil liberties, equal opportunity and the well-being of the worst-off’ (Arrhenius, Gustaf -2018- ‘The Democratic Boundary Problem Reconsidered,’ Journal in Moral and Political Philosophy).
In their manifesto, APNU+AFC said that they intended to use our resources to provide ‘a good life for all Guyanese’ and they made some specific promises in relation to that vision. So that while the regime may have legitimately come to government, its continued legitimacy depends upon a positive assessment that it is keeping faith with its commitments. However, it appears to me that because of the uniqueness of the configuration of Guyana’s democratic boundaries, this critical assessment upon which regime accountability depends could, at best, only be suboptimally performed.
‘Who should have a right to take part in which decisions in democratic decision making? This ‘boundary problem’ is a central issue for democracy and is of both practical and theoretical import. If nothing else, all different notions of democracy have one thing in common: a reference to a community of individuals, “a people”, who takes decision in a democratic fashion. However, that a decision is made with a democratic decision method by a certain group of people doesn’t suffice for making the decision democratic or satisfactory from a democratic perspective. The group also has to be the right one. But what makes a group the right one?’ (Ibid).
To demonstrate the practical implications of the democratic boundary problem the above author gives the example of Northern Ireland, where over many years there were violent confrontations costing thousands of lives between the Unionist/Protestants who support continuing close relations with the United Kingdom and the Republicans/Catholics who want a similar relationship with the Republic of Ireland. With much external coaxing, the two sides finally in 1998 agreed a “Good Friday Agreement’ that ended the violence. The agreement had to be ratified by a referendum, and bearing in mind that republicans are a majority in Northern Ireland, the question arose of ‘what is the relevant constituency’, i.e. what is the relevant ‘people’ that should vote in the referendum?
‘Should a treaty be approved by the citizens (or their representatives) of Northern Ireland alone or should it involve those of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic as well? The … Good Friday Agreement’ was subject to a referendum in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland whereas the citizens of Great Britain were represented by their government. It is hardly a solution acceptable for an old-style Unionist, since she would prefer a referendum in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland or perhaps only in Northern Ireland. Yet, such a referendum would not impress an Irish nationalist who would consider these boundaries arbitrary and illegitimate, nothing more than a kind of international gerrymandering’ (Ibid).
Both sides in the Northern Ireland conflict may well consider themselves dedicated democrats in the sense that they think that a fair solution should be based on a democratic referendum. However, like Guyana, Northern Ireland did not have the construction of a people acceptable to the Catholic minority because the contesting sides were supported by stable constituencies that could not be depended upon to hold their side accountable. Thus the negotiators had to construct a ‘people’ to be consulted that gained its legitimacy by being acceptable to both sides. This is on top of the fact that the Good Friday Agreement also contains a co-equal, power-sharing, governmental arrangement.
Until their leaders understand that Guyana needs to construct a new governance structure that is agreeable to the leadership of at least the larger ethnic groups and that contains arrangements for them to directly participate in the day to day decisions of government, proper accountability or participation will not prevail or the benefits from oil going to the population optimized.
Nevertheless, there is absolutely no need for us to reach the level of despair where we stop speaking of race and ethnicity, or for us to be hankering after accomplishing the impossible. Politicians are an archetypical necessary evil: if they could have been got rid of, they would have been long gone! We need to keep talking, theorizing and proselytizing until we find the right leaders and arrive at that juncture where Guyana can begin the journey towards becoming one people, one nation with one destiny.
