Yesterday we reported on a recent LAPOP survey which found that 65% of Guyanese would be prepared to trade away elections for material guarantees. This latest report is based on responses from the bi-annual LAPOP’s AmericasBarometer survey which was released in November 2021. This is a comparative survey of democratic values across independent countries in North, Central and South America, as well as most of the Caribbean. It encompasses 34 nations, although last year’s report covered 22. LAPOP makes its evaluations across time as well as countries on topics which include the economy, the rule of law, state capacity, trust in institutions, values, corruption, security and the like.
The recent report which was made public a few days ago constitutes an analysis of answers to a question put to respondents in the 2021 survey, ie ‘Which political system seems best for (country): a system that guarantees access to a basic income and services for all citizens, even if the authorities cannot be elected, or to be able to vote to elect the authorities, even if some people do not have access to a basic income and services?’ A total of 14,651 participants in 22 countries responded, and in 17 of those, “more than 50% of adults prefer a system that guarantees material assistance over one that guarantees elections,” the report said. Significantly two of those with the highest percentage of individuals willing to trade elections for material guarantees were in the Caribbean, one of them being Guyana. The other was Jamaica, which along with this country and Ecuador recorded a high of 65%.
One has to ask whether the question was too imprecise for a country like Guyana which is not homogeneous in character, and whose two major political parties are ethnically based. Would a PPP voter, for example, be prepared to have a PNC government with no elections, as long as it provided material guarantees, or vice-versa? Framing the question in an abstract way might produce a different result from something more specific in our case.
LAPOP noted that most of the seven countries which had the highest percentage of individuals willing to trade away elections had “rather competitive elections relative to the region.” Interestingly, they shared this feature with the three countries with the lowest percentage of individuals willing to trade away elections. The report defined competitive elections as having a head of government and national legislature selected through free and fair elections, generally robust election laws and election management bodies. It can only be observed that where Guyana is concerned, both the election management body and to a lesser degree the election laws are by no means robust in the sense that they are uncontentious.
There is a caveat. When the 65%, for example, is broken down, the degree to which individuals are most committed to elections is affected by wealth, education levels and age. The “most substantial” correlation, says the report, relates to age, with those in the oldest of the six age cohorts being 15 percentage points less likely to be willing to trade away elections than the youngest. The report correctly observes that young people in the region may feel disconnected from what happened in the past under autocracies, but have first-hand knowledge of what has occurred under developing democratic governments. This may well apply to Guyana, where the vast majority of the population was either not born yet or very young when Burnham was alive.
It will hardly be a surprise either for political analysts to learn that people in the highest of the five wealth categories are six percentage points less willing to trade elections as compared to the lowest, and that individuals with a tertiary education are 11 percentage points less willing to trade elections than those who have a primary or no education. It only might be remarked that those with a tertiary education, one would have thought, would not fall into the least wealthy categories either.
In the larger AmericasBarometer report of 2021, 61% of participants from the Latin America and Caribbean region said they supported democracy over all other forms of government, yet this notwithstanding they expressed themselves not satisfied with their own democratic government. Only 43% said they were satisfied with it. What the case in Guyana specifically is, is not clear, but given the ethnic divide the answer would probably depend on who is asked the question. At the larger level too, while respondents from more than half of the countries surveyed preferred a guaranteed income and services over governmental elections, contradictorily, perhaps, the majority in all the countries (presumably including Guyana) preferred freedom of expression over guaranteed income. It suggests a fundamental lack of understanding about how democracy works, and that freedom of expression cannot be divorced from that form of government.
It might be added that majorities across the region, said the 2021 report, preferred direct citizen vote over elected representatives, suggesting too that the complexities of modern democracies are not always fully grasped by respondents.
Where the most recent report of September 13 is concerned, the conclusion was that the findings emphasised the importance of ensuring election integrity. The problem in this country is that what constitutes electoral integrity is not even agreed on. Be that as it may, the report also put forward the view that there would be a greater commitment to elections on the part of citizens if there was robust civic education informing citizens about past experience with authoritarianism and strengthening support for democratic principles. This too is problematic in so far as one side in this society associates the other exclusively with authoritarianism, and misses no opportunities to refer to it. Civic education campaigns of this kind have to be very carefully handled, and cannot be seen to be an instrument of one ethnic-political party against another. There needs to be debate and discussion about our recent history, but the right atmosphere has to be created so it can take place without rancour.
It was the conclusions of the larger 2021 report which have a greater resonance in our situation. “Support for democracy is low but holding steady,” it said. “Citizens want politics to reflect their views, fair elections, and politicians who act with integrity. Improving the health of democracy will require concerted efforts around dialogue, inclusion, equity, and good governance.”