Two critical points which emerged from this newspaper’s interview with outgoing US Ambassador Sarah-Ann Lynch on Tuesday, related to communication with the opposition, and the importance of strengthening institutions. Where the first of these is concerned, she said, “My words of encouragement are to talk, communicate, debate, and listen. You know it’s through conversations that we all grow and we all learn from each other, and political parties, government officials are no different than citizens.” She went on to say that it was important not to leave out civil society, whose role in holding politicians accountable should be taken seriously. It is not the first time that she has commended meaningful discussions and inclusivity here with a view to encouraging “solid relationships” and the crafting of solutions for “shared challenges”. At a reception for a high-level US Congress team in March this year she also spoke on the subject, going on to enjoin the government to “keep striving towards transparency, accountability and fairness to improve the quality of life for all Guyanese.”
What stands in the way of this approach is a fundamental difference between what the US and, it might be added, many citizens here interpret as the meaning of democracy, and the government’s far more limited definition of that concept. The situation is not helped by the existence of a severely weakened opposition which is appallingly poorly led, and which has managed to imprison itself in the legal cul-de-sac of trying to invalidate the 2020 election result. Even many of its own supporters must know by now this is nonsense, and that it deflects from what needs to be done to represent their interest.
That being said, the primary issue still lies with the government’s approach. The distinction between what Ambassador Lynch was recommending and the perspective of President Irfaan Ali, for example, was clearly exemplified by a piece in the state newspaper last week. It is clear the ruling party suffers from a moral superiority complex, and the President was quoted as calling on Leader of the Opposition Aubrey Norton to admit his party’s defeat in the 2020 election and acknowledge his party’s role in the events which followed. “All I am asking him to do is confess his sins … Aww, is that too difficult? Confess thy sins,” he was quoted as saying.
This is certainly not a good start to genuine communication. In the first place, given what the opposition party has been telling its supporters for years now, it could hardly be expected that it would ‘confess its sins’ without suffering a demeaning loss of face, not to mention standing with its constituents. It may well be that somewhere down the historical line the PNC may be able to reflect on its past electoral transgressions, but that time is not now. In a different context the President has called himself a “humble” man, but in this instance he opened himself more to a charge of arrogance. It should be sufficient for him that APNU falls quiet about the last election, but works with the government.
In the second place, as has been pointed out before, the PPP/C did not recognise the result of the 2015 election, despite the fact it was deemed free and fair by all international observers. It went to court over the matter, but eventually abandoned the action without pursuing it to a conclusion. Nevertheless, its previous president, Mr Donald Ramotar, was still writing letters to the press about that election being stolen into 2020. Now it is true it did not involve the five months misconduct of that year, but on the other hand, then President Ramotar had prorogued Parliament in 2014 to avoid the government being brought down in a no-confidence vote, and was pressured into holding the 2015 election. There was too the matter of the PPP/C illegally clinging onto an AFC Linden seat following the 2006 poll, which it never relinquished. In other words the ruling party too has some anti-democratic behaviour to its account, even if not nearly as egregious as that of the opposition, but no one has demanded ‘confessions’ from it.
Since there are enough ‘sins’ to go around in one form or another, for there to be a real debate at the present time we need to start anew. But in what one supposes is an oblique response to the Ambassador’s repeated position, President Ali was reported by the state paper on the sidelines of the National Toshaos Conference as suggesting that it was the opposition which was impeding consultations. He referred first to the refusal of Mr Norton and other members of his delegation to shake hands with the President on two occasions. “What you want me to do?” the head of state was quoted as asking rhetorically, “bow before him?” To say that the Opposition Leader had no knowledge of etiquette and displayed appalling bad manners by his refusal is the least of the criticisms which can be made. On the second occasion the episode took on the character of a farce, with the head of state circling around the room trying to corner Mr Norton (according to the latter’s version). It all sounded like suitable material for a satire.
But that bit of unintended comedy aside, President Ali was reported as making reference to the legal hurdles the opposition had placed in the way of consultations. Where this is concerned he is being utterly disingenuous. The delay in the appointment of a substantive Chancellor and Chief Justice was according to the report glossed over with a reference to MP Vinceroy Jordan filing a case challenging the delay. In reality, the Opposition Leader has conveyed his preparedness to confirm the present acting incumbents in their posts, something which has received no response from the head of state. Neither has he called in his counterpart to discuss alternative appointees. Similarly, criticism of the opposition’s failure to contribute to certain legislative amendments is a consequence of the government’s refusal to refer these to Select Committees in Parliament. In other words, even where a mechanism for discussion exists, the ruling party ignores it or avoids it.
All of this is a consequence of President Ali’s distorted view of democracy. As he has said before, and was reported as saying again on Monday, he was seeking to address people’s concerns at the grassroots level.
“My work with opposition is my work in every area conceived or perceived to be opposition,” he was quoted as explaining. Significantly, he was reported as expressing the hope that the opposition would ‘get on board with the agenda’, which had already secured support from some communities in opposition areas. In the expectation of a “bigger victory” at the national elections in 2025, he said, “It’s why I will go to every community and meet the people directly. I will win from bottom up.”
Expanding on his theme, he was quoted as going on to remark, “Any foundation that shifts, the top will have to shift, and the power of the bottom—the power of the people in the grassroots, the power of that foundation—is shifting.”
It appears that to begin with President Ali does not understand that this is not a direct democracy, it is a representative one. The principle of representation is reflected in our Constitution, our government and local government, some of our laws, our Parliament and our electoral system. The head of state is in no position to believe he can bypass all of these and introduce his own form of direct democracy. Talking to the grassroots while ignoring those whom they have elected to represent them is to thumb one’s nose at our democratic system. In any case, this is not the form of ‘communication, debate and listening’ Ambassador Lynch had in mind.
The head of state, it seems, wants the opposition to get ‘on board with the agenda’, which brings us to the next problem, namely that the agenda in his view is not open for discussion. The point about democracies is that they accommodate a variety of viewpoints, and the objectives of a government should be as much open for debate as the means of achieving these, for example. But this government is not persuaded of its own fallibility, despite its sometimes questionable record in addition to outright blunders during it previous periods in office. It simply does not believe that it needs to listen to anyone else, including civil society (which the Ambassador specifically mentioned), if it is critical. Whatever that is, it is not democracy.
But this time, the President was particularly revealing in his comments about winning from the bottom up. He is hoping to convert the opposition grassroots, so they in turn will put pressure on the leadership to change position. He is being unduly naïve if he thinks that this will work in the longer term, even if it does secure his party a larger majority in 2025. But history has its own quirks, as he will discover. What his method does show, however, is that he, and presumably his party too, are primarily concerned about winning, not about governance, let alone democratic governance.
It is often said that the main problem here is the winner-take-all system. It is not. It is the attitude and commitment of those within the system. There are already means for inclusiveness in existence, but if a government wants to disregard these it will do so, especially if there is an incompetent opposition which fails to confront them on a systematic basis.
