Here we go again, a change from one ethnic government to the next, and we expect better results when, by its very nature, such a transfer of power does not have the potential to deliver national unity and equitable social progress.
Under similar governance contraptions in the past the promises about ushering in an era of democratic inclusiveness, addressing ethnic concerns etc., have not materialised in any meaningful way and the mere tediousness of bringing about this specific governmental change does not change the qualitative nature of what has taken place.
What occurred last Sunday might have something to do with majority rule, but there is a fundamental difference between democracy and majority rule and as we have seen in the past, this can become particularly pernicious where one marginal majority ethnic group takes control and attempts to rule a ‘people’ that rejects their so doing. The most common understanding of democracy is ‘rule by the people’ and I take the ‘people’ to mean ‘a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group’ (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/people). Though living in the same country, two large ethnic groups expressing the level of political hostility that exists in Guyana does not constitute a ‘people’.
The electoral principle with its core value of making leaders responsive to the citizenry by way periodic elections is a universal principle but it must be properly contextualized if its outcome is to be sensibly referred to as democracy. Some have identified seven democratic principles with rather distinct sets of core values: electoral, liberal, majoritarian, consensual, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian, but ‘we would not want to call a regime without elections ‘democratic’ in any sense’ (https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/e7/a6/e7a638e3-358c-4b96-9197-e1496775d280/comparisons_and_ contrasts_v5.pdf. Yet, the majoritarian and consensual principles of democracy are in many ways quite opposite. The former holds that democracy is improved if it ensures that the many prevail over the few in terms of making decisions. On the other hand, the consensual principle emphasizes that the political institutions should encourage or mandate the inclusion of as many political perspectives as possible. Thus, democracy is improved in the consensual sense if small groups are easily represented and in some circumstances it requires executive power-sharing at the national level. It is this consensual principle that must exist in countries with an ethnic division such as Guyana for them to be meaningfully deemed democratic.
However, where the ruling group rejects this kind of equitable broad-based political involvement and wants to be considered democratic, i.e., taking and maintaining itself in office in a competitive electoral context, it will find itself in insurmountable contradictions. For example, where it has a marginal majority, such as in Guyana, it will seek to secure its ethnic base by systemically manipulating elections and preferring its supporters. Furthermore, as we have seen in Guyana over the last six decades, expanding its ethnic base into its main competitor by overcoming the negative ethnic narrative of that competitor is next to impossible. Therefore, particularly at exclusive meetings it will seek to demonize the other side and their supporters thus making it impossible to fulfill its usually publicly stated primary goal of ending ethnic alienation. Of course, persistent promises of inclusiveness and good governance etc., will proliferate but will not end discrimination and disassociation, for as I shall indicate below, the regime will come to gravitate towards a system the internal dynamics of which is based upon discrimination.
As in the past in Guyana, the ruling group will gradually seek to de facto establish what is euphemistically called an ‘ethnic democracy’: ‘a political system that combines a structured ethnic dominance with democratic, political and civil rights for all. Both the dominant ethnic group and the minority ethnic groups have citizenship and are able to fully participate in the political’ (https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Ethnic _ democracy). Israeli democracy is of this sort and Professor Sammy Smooha of Haifa University has provided a conceptualization that should allow one to understand when a country is upon the ethnic democratic trajectory. The following framework must be properly contextualized to account for the nature of the country, the timing of the processes, etc. since all of its element will not and need not be relevant to Guyana.
The eight core elements of his model are: ethnic nationalism installs a single core ethnic nation in the state, the state separates membership in the single core ethnic nation from citizenship, the state is owned and ruled by the core ethnic nation, the state mobilises the core ethnic nation, non-core groups are accorded incomplete individual and collective rights, the state allows non-core groups to conduct parliamentary and extra-parliamentary struggle for change, the state perceives non-core groups as a threat and the state imposes some control on non-core groups. The main condition are: the core ethnic nation constitutes a solid numerical majority, the non-core population constitutes a significant minority, the core ethnic nation has a commitment to democracy, the core ethnic nation is an indigenous group, the non-core groups are immigrant, the non-core group is divided into more than one ethnic group, the core ethnic nation has a sizeable, supportive Diaspora, the homelands of the non-core groups are involved, there is international involvement and transition from a non-democratic ethnic state has taken place. (Ibid & https://www.researchgate.net/publication /227539811_ The_Model_of_Ethnic_Democracy Israel_as_ a_Jewish_and_Democratic_State)
In its previous incarnation in government this is precisely where the PPP/C was de facto going during the latter part of its tenure, and by the very logic of its situation, it will attempt to go in that direction again. Although only in government for a few years, despite the establishment of a ministry of inclusion and much associated talk, the coalition was persistently blamed for discriminatory behaviour, and perhaps with time we would have seen similar-type ambitions. The PPP/C is again in government and again the president, now Dr. Irfaan Ali, has promised much in terms improved ethnic relations and development. President Ali: show us.