Dear Editor,
In an editorial published in its September 12, 2021 edition, Stabroek News challenged the PPP/C’s commitment, or non-commitment, to the fundamentals of a liberal democracy. The lengthy editorial was rather weighty on contemporary ideological issues, something that is rare for SN. The thrust of the editorial was to juxtapose authoritarian rule versus liberal democracy. Subliminally, the editorial suggested that given its ‘structure and penchant for control’ the PPP is more inclined to ‘autocratic rule’ …but that ‘it is constrained to do so because the ‘social circumstances do not provide fertile ground for anything encompassing.’ Some examples were given to justify its observations, claiming that globally, liberal democracy had trumped authoritarianism and that the PPP/C’s actions are at variance with liberal democracy. Anyone acquainted with world history, would not have any difficulty recognizing the similarities in language, in some sections of the editorial, to be reminiscent of the Cold War era. That aside, historical experience shows that the ‘social circumstances’ referred to, never existed in British Guiana, nor Guyana, for the establishment of a ‘communist’ or sustained autocratic rule of any kind. And if it did, it was just the figment of the imagination of those who plotted and planned to keep the PPP out of government. Political developments, over the past year or two in the bastions of liberal democracy, as well as experiments with liberal democracy in a number of developing countries, demand that the issues raised in the SN editorial be revisited.
Contrary to the notion that it is the PPP/C’s failure to commit to a liberal democracy that is a cause for concern, it was the emergence of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement in the US, and the assault at the Capitol in Washington DC, that should be a cause for concern as regards the real meaning and efficacy of liberal democracy in today’s world. Thirty years ago, the PPP/C came to power against the backdrop of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist countries in Eastern Europe. Those epochal developments were followed by regime change in a number of countries, including Guyana. At that time, liberal democracy and neo-liberalism were viewed by many as panacea and models not to be followed, save and except by governments in some countries who chose a different path not consistent with the right to self-determination. For its part, the new PPP/C administration, and successive ones thereafter, supported by friendly and successive administrations in the US, Canada, the UK and the EU, declared in favour of, and embarked on, a path of national democracy. The PPP/C’s model of democracy for Guyana envisaged the establishment of a National Democratic State. SN’s editorial claimed that ‘Rohee …does not flesh out exactly what he means by National Democratic’ nor do the ‘old hands see this (Guyana) as an open society reflecting liberal values and that ‘it is uncertain what exactly they intend…’ The editorial further declared that: ‘The social policy referred to by Messrs Ramotar and Rohee is important, but that is a content issue and does not in and of itself say anything about formal provisions which go to make up the framework of the state.’ For the avoidance of doubt, and since the editorial seemed concerned more about form than content, it is important to point out that the National Democratic State’s mission envisaged representation of the interests of all classes, groups and social strata. Further, it envisaged ‘an inclusive state with a multi-ethnic, multi-class and plural government whose task is to prevent foreign domination of any kind and to preserve the full democratic rights of all Guyanese’.
The PPP/C’s model of national democracy, save for a few mild passing turbulences, was never viewed by successive friendly governments in the US, Canada, the UK nor the EU as antagonistic, nor contradictory to liberal democracy practiced in those countries. Suffice it to say, at the domestic level, there will always be Gordian knots between democracy and good governance just as there will be with politics and economics. Incidentally, not all Gordian knots can be untied in the same way. The editorial went on to state that ‘One might have hoped that the PPP/C … would be proceeding more deliberately towards a society reflecting the character of a liberal democracy with its associated values.’ With that in mind, it is important to point out that liberal democratic tenets including; representative democracy, a recognition of civil and human rights, freedom of speech, the press and religion, an independent judiciary, a market economy and the need for the rule of law, are not at variance with, nor in contradiction to, the principles of national democracy that includes: good governance, democracy in all its aspects – political, economic, industrial, social and cultural; empowerment of people at all levels; the fullest exercise of human rights – civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural in keeping with the UN Covenant on Human Rights; economic growth with social and ecological justice; a mixed economy; balanced agricultural/ industrial and rural development and multi-culturalism – unity in diversity. Throughout the 1992 to 2015 period, questions as to whether liberal democracy was being practiced in Guyana never arose. Now, after twenty three years in office, and its return to government, the SN editorial has put the matter on the agenda. The editorial claimed that the PPP/C’s commitment to liberal democracy would have been clear had it implemented the following sprawling measures: dismantled its party structure; loosened its penchant for control; met with the opposition; relinquished its dominance of local government bodies; discussed constitutional reform and appointed a permanent Chief Justice and Chancellor.
There is no gainsaying that these are topical issues indeed, however, bold and quick actions on these matters will not see the APNU+AFC backing off from confrontation politics, nor will they bring about a resolution of bigger economic and political questions facing the nation. Practical elements associated with a liberal democracy should not be confused with larger questions, the answers to which would, cumulatively, lay the basis for a new social order in which the threat for electoral subversion and profound internal divisions could be removed or reduced significantly. Big ticket issues such as: implementation of the mechanism for the use of the country’s oil wealth; the preservation and consolidation of the fragile democracy we live in, pursued within the meaning of ‘One Guyana’ with a view to facilitating the rapid and balanced agricultural and industrial development of our country’s huge potential is where our focus should be. The domestic considerations apart, what the editorial failed to recognize is that the very survival of liberal democracy is now at issue in the light of political developments in the US and elsewhere. The threat to liberal democracy is so grave that President Biden recently declared that, ‘Those who stormed this Capitol and those who called on them to do so held a dagger at the throat of America and American democracy.’ Compounding the situation is the ravages of the COVID-19 pandemic that has brought the efficacy of liberal democracy into bolder relief as manifested in many European countries, where their citizenries have responded hugely and angrily against lock-downs and tougher measures. The call to uphold the values of liberal democracy comes at a time when, on the one hand, liberal democracy itself is on trial globally, and, on the other, there is a failure to recognize the efforts being made on the domestic front by the PPP/C to create a more meaningful and vibrant national democracy with its complex tapestry and imperfections.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
