Dear Editor,
Reference is made to editorial “Democracy v autocracy” (Sep 1), drawing from Dr. Bertie Ramcharan’s thesis on ‘shades of autocracy’. These concepts are primarily of interest to academics, politicians, and a small number among the elite. They don’t occupy the attention of hard working ordinary people, more than half of the population, who are more interested in their struggle to put food on the table for families. Be that as it may, democracy and autocracy should be of concern to all Guyanese at home and abroad and everyone should take some time to understand them and how they affect their lives.
Autocracy can lead to authoritarianism and eventually dictatorial rule with potential to breed violence as we experienced during the period of the dictatorship and also at other periods. The editorial provides clear illustrations of autocracy but provides no definition of it or its near opposite, democracy and no explanation of how people’s lives are impacted by both – how government is chosen and how power is exercised – how the elected people rule. One can’t take for granted that people understand democracy and autocracy – how a government is chosen and how it is supposed to govern in a real democracy.
Democracy is a system of government chosen by the people to govern them – establish law and order. The people are sovereign, and the government has limited power as given to it by the people as in developed countries like USA, UK, Canada, among others. The people choose the government in free and fair elections. There is accountability of political behaviour from the people and the strong independent court and from the other branches of government. Government power is limited to protect the rights of the individual whose rights are nearly unlimited including the right to criticize the government without having to worry about being victimized for free speech.
Regrettably in Guyana, unlike as in developed countries, politicians (from both sides) don’t like to be critiqued or criticized, not even in mildest terms. And they are known (using tropes) to go after critics as we see in the response to Dr. Ramcharan’s thesis on shades of autocracy. In the US, where more Guyanese reside than in Guyana, critiques against American politicians are common without evoking the wrath of the critiqued. In fact, politicians tend to welcome critiques as a way to improve performance ratings. That is not part of political culture in Guyana.
The opposite of democracy is authoritarianism or dictatorship and even autocracy – a system of government in which the ruler (s) is not elected, governs heavy handedly violating peoples basic rights, having virtually no restraints on exercising power, firing critics from their jobs, murdering opponents, among other anti-democratic tendencies. An autocratic form of dictatorship (in which one or a small group of individuals) govern without accountability, and they do whatever they wish. Guyana is not an autocracy; democracy was restored in October 1992 after the rise of the dictatorship in the late 1960s. But shades of autocracy (or ‘the arrogance of power’) were exhibited by politicians on both sides; politicians did whatever they wanted, and there were no strong institutions to stop them from abusing power. Aspects of autocracy as exercised by both sides include ignoring constitutional limits on power and separation of powers, going after critics, violating freedoms (including abusing state media), withdrawing state ads from critical private media, lack of consultation on policymaking, abusing parliamentary majority, among others.
So, democracy and autocracy are near opposites. In the former, the people have the power to rule indirectly by electing a government whereas in the latter an unelected government assumes power or an elected government assumes unrestrained power without accountability. The concept of shades of autocracy is similar to (opposite of) the concepts of ‘shades of democracy’ of Bertelsmann’s Foundation (BTI) – of how free or democratic is a country — and ‘shades of Ill-liberalism’ – how liberal or democratic a country — of Dr. Fareed Zakaria of Harvard University (Author of Strange History of Illiberal Democracy). As Dr. Zakaria and even BTI pointed out, democratically elected regimes, often ones that have been re-elected, are routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and are depriving their population basic rights essential to any democracy; freedom of speech is curtailed.
Government and politicians of both sides should not be so sensitive and defensive of every critique or criticism to go after critics like Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan or GHK Lall and other media people or media houses like Stabroek News, Kaieteur News, and others. Critiques are an essential component of a democracy and of having better (or guiding government on how to improve) governance.
With regards to Dr. Ramcharan’s thesis, many, including supporters of the government, offer praise for his courage to raise the issue of shades of autocracy. His thesis is an attempt for Guyanese to better understand government and governance and place it in a certain perspective. He is a patriot who seems interested in improving governance. His concept is more for academics and supporters (of government or opposition) than for those struggling to eke out a living. I do not know and never met Dr. Ramcharan and I had differences with him as well as critiqued him on a few pieces he penned. But he produced some outstanding pieces of scholarship on ethnic division, democratic governance, and other subjects.
I do not know his role in political activism against the dictatorship, but he was supportive of Dr. Jagan, and earlier this year he condemned what he perceived as attacks on the iconic Indian Guyanese leader. Those who know him from Windsor Forest and his student life in England described him as a man of integrity. The fact that one did not or does not join the struggle against the dictatorship or was vociferous against electoral rigging does not mean one was supportive of rigging and does not take away one’s right to critique governance. Analogously, the fact that someone, like me for example, spent an entire life actively combating authoritarianism and election rigging, or politicians who won government, does not give me or politicians the right to ignore other views on governance.
Dr. Jagan would not have condemned fair criticism, and he would have engaged rather than attack critics; Cheddi and I had several conversations. One must also appreciate Ruel Johnson’s brilliant critique or analysis (Sep 4) of Dr. Ramcharan’s innovative thesis. Readers are much wiser from the writings of both outstanding writers and others as well as the editorial on democracy and autocracy. No doubt, as all writers would agree, democracy is the best form of government and every effort must be made to push back against autocratic tendencies of politicians from both sides of the aisle.
Sincerely,
Vishnu Bisram, PhD (Pol Sci)
