Dear Editor,
It would be remiss of me, as a citizen, to remain silent in view of the various pronouncements being made and actions taken that are antithetical to democracy by those who profess to be the product of democracy, as in free and fair elections, and the ultimate guardians of democracy. This situation begs the question: what is democracy? Democracy may be described as a three dimensional matrix made up representativeness, responsiveness and responsible behaviour, as its essential elements. The absence of any of those elements compromises democracy and a deficiency in any one undermines democracy.
Representativeness is realized through the election of the peoples` representatives, who then exercise sovereignty on the peoples` behalf. Inclusion and/or participation of the elected representatives in the decision-making processes, as an essential aspect of Good Governance, provides for the realization of representativeness.
If representativeness is not observed, democracy becomes virtually non-existent. Sadly, this is the case in Guyana. The elected officials in the persons of the President, Vice-President and their subordinates have openly and explicitly refused to involve the representatives of 40% plus of the electorate in the decision-making processes. While, our constitution specifies that “Local government is a vital aspect of democracy” they have refused to engage the locally elected officials in constituencies where those representatives are from the opposition. They are also defying article 13 of the constitution which states “The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens and their organisations in the management and decision making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision- making that directly affect their well-being.”
The ruling regime`s behaviour is autocratic; undermines the proclaimed democracy; and cannot be rationalized by claims that courtesies like the shaking of hands have not been observed. In fact, the undemocratic behaviour is meted out across the system, at large. IDPADA-G has repeatedly observed the courtesy of hand shaking and repeatedly requested meetings, yet there has been the indirect refusal to meet, followed by public pronouncements about meeting directly with the people, rather than their representatives. Inherent in the aforementioned is the non-adherence to responsiveness. There can be no responsiveness if the peoples` representatives are not allowed a hearing or included in decision-making fora, and the fourth estate is lectured to, rather than listened to, when entertained. Responsible behaviour has been treated no differently. Responsible behaviour is intended to provide for transparency, in which circumstances decisions are made based on principles and well established criteria.
At the very root of the political system in Guyana, the erosion of responsible behaviour is evident and normalized. GECOM`s two top officers have been appointed by a majority vote although in both instances they did not meet the essential criteria stipulated by the said personnel who facilitated the majority decision. This is but an example of the pervasive erosion of responsible behaviour.
To what extent can GECOM be relied on to conduct free and fair elections when there is no commitment to democracy at the level of the commissioners, who installed the administrators, as creatures behoove to them, albeit through undemocratic processes? In the circumstance of the conscious side stepping and undermining of the democratic system, and the silencing of citizens who dare to speak out, what are the options at the disposal of the citizens for the return of, and adherence to, democratic principles?
Sincerely,
Vincent Alexander
