Dear Editor,
One major political party will hold internal elections this coming Saturday to choose its executive. I wish it well. My studies on political parties in Guyana and comparative political studies elsewhere have revealed that internal elections are not idealistically democratic especially among the larger parties. The same is true of political parties in almost every developing (Third World) country. Intraparty democracy is strong and institutionalized in the developed countries. But in Guyana and developing countries, participatory democracy within political parties is lacking.
In Guyana, as is also the case in almost every developing country, democratic participation in the larger parties tends to be restricted. Some parties are more democratic than others. In Guyana and most developing countries, party member participation is restricted to delegates rather than the entire membership. And delegate selection tends to be manipulated to favour a particular result. The minor parties in Guyana have small number of members and tend to have a larger percentage of their members participating in the democratic process of leadership selection (leader, Chair, and other executive positions).
Intra or internal party democracy is very important in a country. It is a key ingredient in ensuring democracy in a country. If a party is not democratic, then its governance in a country is likely to be undemocratic (violates human rights, rigs elections, engages in corruption, persecutes political opponents, etc.). And lack of democracy in a country impacts on social stability and ethnic harmony (in pluralist nations like Guyana) as well as economic development. We know from experience of what happened in Guyana during the period of dictatorship (1966 to 1992).
In Guyana, intraparty democracy across all political parties has been very limited with some parties having virtually no democracy. Parties have a constitution with well-defined objectives, guaranteeing rights to its members. But these are hardly enforced. The political power and influence of members exist only on paper. If one seeks enforcement of rights, he or she is targeted and victimized; he or she could also be expelled from the party or forced to resign.
The selection process of the leadership of a party in Guyana is flawed or non-existent. Internal elections are manipulated or rigged for favoured candidates. There is a limited role for party members, especially those who are at the bottom economically lacking financial muscle. And ironically, those at the bottom are most loyal to the party to the point of being sycophants. But senior leadership don’t pay heed to their views, and as such they are perennially disempowered without even recognizing or accepting they have no influence in their party. And women too tend to have little voice; they are hardly consulted on issues.
All parties in Guyana should emphasize broad participation (in decision making) of members in their operation. And membership participation should not only be restricted to voting once every few years at a congress of delegates but in all levels of decision making as well as in the party structure – candidate selection for all offices and all office holders, appointments to boards and state agencies, policy making, legislation, government budgeting, etc. That is intra-party democracy — structures and processes in the party provide opportunities for members to have a say, to influence, the choices and policies that parties offer to the nation. It becomes a kind of collective decision-making in which members can’t complain that they were not consulted. It leads to party unity.
So intra-party democracy, and by extension the country’s democracy, largely depends on the extent to which processes of effective membership participation in parties are permitted. Will the PNC maximize membership (delegate selection) participation in its leadership race? Will the process be free and fair or will it become embroiled in controversy as happened in earlier internal elections?
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
