Dear Editor,
One of the most quoted articles in our constitution is Article 13. It reads: “The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, …” Achievement of the “principle objective” is considered vital in resolving our country’s worsening political conflict. All references to Article 13 therefore bemoan its non-fulfilment.
The wording of the article, however, confuses two significantly different types of democracy. Clarification is necessary because the two types implicate separate goals and strategies to solve political problems. The article speaks in the same sentence of “inclusionary democracy” and “participation of citizens”, thereby discounting the fact that the latter phrase is the essence of another model of democracy, known as participatory democracy (PD). What’s the difference? Inclusionary democracy (ID) typically refers to the idea and practice of including stakeholders across political, racial, and other divides in the forums of debate and decision-making. Citizens, however, are still represented by and entrust their elected officials in these forums. In distinct contrast, in a participatory democracy, citizens themselves sit in the forums of power. They speak and/or vote for themselves. So while inclusionary democracy (ID) aims for social cohesion and political reconciliation through multi-stakeholder representation, participatory democracy (PD) strives for more direct citizen involvement, for a shift in policymaking power away from politicians to John and Jenny Public, irrespective of their race, class and other such attributes.
If, as likely, the framers of the constitution in 1999/2000 had only ID in mind, a more suitable wording of Article 13 would be: “… to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities in national decision-making for the participation of groups and stakeholders who represent different values, preferences and interests.”
In diversified societies with inflamed political conflict, such as ours, the model of choice is inclusionary democracy, of which a formalized power-sharing government is the highest form. Participatory democracy instead is preferred for local government. As Article 71 of our constitution states, local government “shall be organized to involve as many people as possible in the task of developing and managing the communities in which they live.” Are there means and opportunities for citizens to exercise this right in Guyana? PD is also the response to situations where the ills of representative government (such as out-of-touch elected officials) lead to widespread public displeasure. PD strives to solve the problem by encouraging more citizens in policymaking through, for example, co-governance schemes. As is often stated in the literature, PD attempts to solve the problems of democracy through more democracy.
In any event, Guyana needs more of both forms of democracy. Enriching our democracy first requires an appreciation that it is almost purely representative (we elect people to represent us both locally and nationally, then return to our daily business of living) and purely majoritarian (the opposition has its say, but the winner has its way).
If we aim for more PD, then we should encourage use of public hearings and surveys of citizens (two recommendations in the Ministry of Communities 2017 guidebook for local councils) and petitions and referenda. As with all types of democracy, PD is not without its challenges, such as ill-informed citizens (thus advantaging those with higher interest and education) and the difficulty of organizing mass public participation. Modern electronic and Internet technology, however, can revolutionize participatory democracy by providing easier opportunities for citizens to access information, share ideas, partake in discussions, and vote.
If inclusionary democracy is our aspiration, then proposals such as the oft-cited supermajority requirement to pass key legislation qualify, as the mechanism will force the governing party to include opposition parties in joint decision making. Mandated broad-based composition of various forums of decision-making also fits the bill. And, of course, ditto for executive power-sharing arrangements. All told, PD and ID are topics of two separate conversations. Article 13 should be reworded to capture both in full.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
