By Dr Bertrand Ramcharan
Seventh Chancellor of the University of GuyanaPreviously Fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government
In 1919, as his country dealt with defeat in World War I, world-famous German political philosopher Max Weber gave a celebrated lecture on “The Profession and Vocation of Politics”. It is widely considered the most important piece of work in the history of modern political ideas.
Weber thought that Germany had been led to disaster not by its military, but by the very poor quality of its political leadership. He therefore set out to analyse what qualities one should expect of a country’s political leaders. His essay contains lessons that are worth keeping in mind in a country like Guyana which, in one way or another, has been on the brink since 1953. One could legitimately interrogate the quality of political leadership in Guyana for the past seventy-five years – across the political spectrum.
In a key insight, Weber counselled that to be a professional leader is to be more than a professional. To do politics as a job is to be asked to supply it with a vision, especially for the few who are called to the political leadership of a sovereign state. In another key insight, Weber thought that modern politics – professional politics – has to be done with the head and the heart.
Modern political theory looks at the structure of the State, the composition of its population, the quality of political representation, the performance of political parties, the calibre of political leadership, the state of human rights, and the effectiveness of accountability. All seven categories require careful evaluation in the context of Guyana’s history and politics.
Prior to independence, Guyana was a colonial state caught up in the Cold War. It came to independence in contestation and violence, and it has been plagued by political and ethnic differences, and the periodic manifestation of violence, ever since its independence in 1966. In 1966 the Guyanese state was defined by the independence constitution which was itself contested.
The independence constitution was overthrown in a fraudulent referendum and the successor constitution of 1980, although since amended by Parliament, remains contested in the populace. The definition and structure of the Guyanese state thus remain ambiguous and feeble, and impact adversely on the stability and security of the country.
The population of Guyana, some three quarters of one million remaining within the country, comprises four main ethnic groups, enumerated alphabetically: Afro-Guyanese, Guyanese of Mixed ancestry, Indigenous Guyanese, and Indo-Guyanese. The Guyanese national motto, set at independence, is: One Nation, One People, One Destiny. The current President advocates a ‘One Guyana’ policy.
All Guyanese are happy at being Guyanese. There is something special about being a Guyanese. But political strife prior to, and since independence, and the competition for votes between the two historical parties, the PPP and the PNC , results in deep divisions in the electorate, especially at election time. The main political parties compete for votes with the primary aim of taking power. So far, they have not offered the Guyanese people a vision of how to come together as one people.
The main political parties lack of the ‘vision thing’ is one of the main deficiencies of the Guyanese political scene. To be fair, the current President, Irfaan Ali, is ardent in his championship of ‘One Guyana’ but this is being done in an environment of intense partisanship on the part of the two main political parties. It is not clear to what extent ‘One Guyana’ is taking root.
Under the independence constitution, representation of the people was arranged under a system of constituencies. This largely disappeared under the fraudulently imposed post-referendum constitution, and few members of the electorate have any idea about who is their representative in parliament. This not only broke a link between the electors and the elected, but it brought it a system under which members of parliament are accountable only to their political parties. In effect, there is little or no accountability.
The two main political parties at independence, the PPP and the PNC continue to hold sway over most of the electorate. After the demise of the United Force, the Alliance for Change is the only third party to have held a significant number of seats in Parliament. At general election time the main parties do publish manifestos, but these are mostly boiler-plate documents lacking in visionary depth or in strategies for bringing the country together.
When it comes to political leadership of the three main parties, the PPP leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, has the longest political experience, is a diligent campaigner, and a relatively successful politician. However, it would be fair to say that he is not perceived as a healing, unifying figure.
The leader of the PNCR, Aubrey Norton, has a long history of political and street campaigning. He was recently elected leader of the PNCR, has earned a reputation of bellicosity, and has not yet offered a unifying vision for the country.
The leader of the Alliance for Change, Nigel Hughes, a successful Attorney-at-Law, has only recently been elected leader and is in the process of finding his feet as a leader. So far, he has not yet articulated a comprehensive unifying vision for the country.
One could therefore conclude that the leaders of the three main political parties are mostly engaged in political campaigning for office and have not yet set about the business of helping to bring the country together – which is indeed a daunting challenge that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. They would do well to remember Max Weber’s counsel that to do politics is to be asked to supply the country with a vision and to function with the head as well as the heart.
When it comes to issues of respect for, and protection of human rights, it would be fair to assess that the country remains, for the most part, a rule-of-law country that is largely spared of mass and flagrant violations of human rights. The Caribbean Court of Justice has been a good watch dog over the rule of law. However, the protection of indigenous people, women and children require urgent attention; and reports of police malpractices are pervasive in the society. NGOs involved in the promotion and protection of human rights have felt pressures from governments of both main parties.
Which brings us to the seventh category, accountability. The reports of Auditors-General are frequently met with pro-forma denials and little follow-up. The constitutional rights bodies exist mainly on paper. The Ombudsperson issues reports but there is little evidence that they are taken seriously. However, it is possible to seize the courts and to obtain relief for alleged breaches of the Constitution and the law.
Four conclusions may be suggested from the foregoing snapshot of the Guyanese body-politic: first, each of the main political parties should urgently come up with a vision and a strategy for healing and unifying the nation and for enlarging the consensus around a Guyanese identity. Second, it is a matter of the greatest urgency to restore a constituency system in the electoral arrangements so as to foster a sense of accountability of parliamentarians to their electorate. Third, the institutions of accountability, notably the Auditor-General, the Ombudsperson, and the constitutional rights commissions should be supported so as to be able to discharge their duties effectively.
And, finally, the quality of political leadership must be interrogated in our young, fragile, multi-ethnic state. The leaders of the main political parties should be held to account for the quality of the leadership they provide towards healing and helping the Guyanese state to coalesce into “One Nation, One People, One Destiny” or in the contemporary shorthand, “One Guyana.”
As Max Weber put it: someone has to supply the vision: someone has to believe in the cause; someone has to know what the point of it all is. The name for that person is the leader: the leader of the party, the leader of the state.
