Last week President Irfaan Ali entertained the diplomatic corps to lunch in the Baridi Benab at State House. Present too were most members of the cabinet, including Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo. The main purpose of the occasion it seems was to express gratitude to the diplomats for their “selflessness and commitment” in making sure that democracy was not sabotaged following the March 2nd elections last year.
Well, perhaps the address was not directed at all of them. The Cuban, Chinese and Russian ambassadors, for example, for obvious reasons would not have been too much to the fore when election matters were involved. It was the Western nations primarily which exerted pressure on former President David Granger to concede, and of those, it was the US which played the critical role.
The DPI reported the President as saying that Guyana would always be grateful to those who led from the front in defending democratic principles here, and that this had cemented in his government a commitment to contribute whenever possible to democracy all across the world. The agency went on to quote him as telling his audience:
“We believe strongly that democratic values are values that should never be sacrificed, are values that are part of human dignity and human rights; and our commitment to Guyana is to ensure that never again should the people of this country have to experience such moments when the democracy of the country was tested. So, I want to say to all of you that be assured that Guyana and this government’s commitment to democracy is unwavering.”
While this all sounds very elevating, it obscures the issue of how the PPP defines democracy. The party was born out of a Marxist tradition, the only such political grouping in the British Caribbean, all of whose socialist leaders reflected the complexion of the Labour Party, not the communist world. For all of that, Dr Cheddi Jagan was a firm believer in free and fair elections his entire life, although how that was fully accommodated within the parameters of his other views was not spelt out. A more predictable viewpoint which he never relinquished was that class in Guyana was more important than race, a somewhat tenuous assumption at best and plain inaccurate at worst.
While Freedom House has long since abandoned the economic postures which characterised the communist outlook, it still retains the structures of its earliest days, along with its constitution. Together with this go certain attitudes, reinforced, perhaps, by the smallness of this society and its ethnic divide. The most problematic of these is its obsession with control, not just of the actual political space, but also of supposedly autonomous agencies and private organisations.
This has consequences in terms of the party’s preparedness to be open to other viewpoints and take into account alternative policy suggestions. The PPP still operates as if it is the vanguard party in which all useful ideas have their genesis. President Ali expressed the hope that there would be more opportunities for a continuous exchange of ideas with the diplomatic corps. The government was open, transparent and accessible, the DPI reported him as saying.
The news agency went on to quote him as telling the diplomats his government wanted to ensure, “not only Guyanese have access, but the international community has access, and that we are ready and prepared to answer any questions, any queries, and also to listen to any ideas that you may have.” It may be that the President is anxious to expunge the hostile image which was created when President Donald Ramotar was in office, and Minister Manickchand issued what Dr Roger Luncheon described as a “feral blast” at a diplomatic function. But the diplomatic corps is not in the same category as the citizens of this nation, and he does not have to accept its views except in certain limited circumstances. At the same time, he does not want to invite its antagonism and so he has nothing to lose by being accessible, at the very least.
Where the local population is concerned, however, there is little evidence that the PPP/C has changed its approach after its first two decades in office when it had such stunning fiascos to its credit as the Skeldon sugar factory and the Amaila Falls approach road, to name but two. There was no transparency or openness there, and control was very much the watchword of the governing party, encompassing local government and even the National Toshaos Council which it sought to dominate without any pretences.
And now we have a far more dangerous and complicated situation with the oil contracts and the gas-to-shore pipeline, to give the two most egregious examples. Openness and transparency are entirely lacking here, and the government is resistant to any level of discussion or input from professional and knowledgeable persons. In the case of the EPA it got rid of that agency’s eminently qualified head probably in order to have a freer hand with the oil, in addition to which he was a member of the AFC. Yet the crown for secrecy goes to Minister of Agriculture Zulfikar Mustapha, whose fishy issuance of seabob licences defied the protocols and placed Guyana in danger of losing its Marine Stewardship Council certification.
In other words, democracy as far as the PPP/C is concerned is just about free elections; it is not about all the other essentials which are intrinsic to a democratic polity such as an independent judiciary, autonomous agencies, local authorities which have freedom of manoeuvre, openness, transparency and a willingness to listen to and take on board divergent opinions. How can the governing party reasonably claim it will listen to others when it refuses to deal with the PNCR-led APNU+AFC coalition, even when the Constitution requires that it do so? As a consequence we cannot be guaranteed an independent judiciary since the President refuses to discuss the appointment of a Chief Justice and Chancellor with the Leader of the Opposition. Whatever else it is, it is not democracy.
This is not to suggest that the PNCR record for the most part is any better, and in their case they did not even accept the democratic framework of free and fair elections for 24 years. Then to their eternal shame in 2020 its leaders attempted to revert to their earlier disreputable practice, aggravating their transgression by telling their constituents they had been cheated of victory by the PPP. It is a course which has brought them nothing but ignominy from thinking persons both inside and outside the country, while it has retarded their ability to represent their constituents in any meaningful way.
Government in the modern world is not easy, and democratic government in the age of the internet is especially difficult. Our situation is exacerbated by the fact that there is a serious dearth of competence because so many skilled people have migrated, and it is difficult to find enough persons of ability to fill all the critical posts available. Even when such a person exists, as in the case of Dr Adams, the authorities will often get rid of him or her for political or related reasons. There can be no development if we cannot have competent government, and talented sycophants are simply not that plentiful.
One wonders if our politicians – and this applies across the board – will ever graduate to a point where they favour competence over nepotism and loyalty. Until they do, we will not progress very far very fast.
Then there is corruption. Both the PPP/C and APNU+AFC governments were corrupt. Citizens everywhere are more aware of this scourge then they were decades ago, and are more prepared to speak out about it, including in Guyana. Voters are no longer as naïve as they once were, and if the government is serious, it has to ensure there is the kind of bureaucratic infrastructure on a large-enough scale in place to identify corrupt practices, as well as effective mechanisms to deal with it. A functioning democratic society has to be prepared to confront corruption.
According to the DPI, President Ali said that he had made clear to members of the cabinet that they had to be proactive, and reach out to create more opportunities for cooperation. This way they would discuss possibilities and achieve more outcomes which in turn would lead to a better, more prosperous and dynamic society.
We wait to see which democratic values President Ali is now prepared to promote in the interest of a ‘more prosperous and dynamic society’. He seems prepared to facilitate access to officialdom, but what about openness and transparency? What about answering questions the public may have, and, it might be added, fair-minded criticisms? What about not just listening to different ideas, but discussing them rationally and taking some of them on board? What about autonomous institutions, an independent judiciary and local authorities free from the stranglehold of central government?
Exactly what kind of democratic society does President Ali have in mind?
