Dear Editor,
I thank Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan for his response `Intended or not, I would say the facts speak for themselves’ (SN – 26, October, 2024), wherein he doubles down rhetorically on the ‘incontrovertible’ quality of his opinions:
“First, is there meaningful consultation with the Opposition, and are Parliamentary Committees functioning as intended? Second, have there been documented reports by impartial authorities about mismanagement in some government departments and authorities? Third, has the Leader of the PPP commented publicly that there is need for vigilance against corruption in the procurement process?”
I agree in principle when he says the facts speak for themselves. Firstly, in terms of consultation, the term ‘meaningful’ is fraught with subjective interpretation, and is best settled by litigation. And we do in fact have an example of that being done with regard to the President’s appointments of the Chairs of both the Police Service and Integrity Commissions being challenged by Opposition Leader, Aubrey Norton on the basis that the President had not meaningfully consulted with him. Norton lost that case. On the role of Parliamentary Committees and their functioning, some do and some do not – that has virtually zero bearing on making the case for an autocracy any more than the dysfunction in the current US Congress and its committees make the case for a creeping Biden dictatorship.
The same goes for reports by impartial authorities – most notably autonomous state sector institutions – about mismanagement. Reports that reflect mismanagement in some areas are in fact evidence of watchdog bodies engaging in their constitutional or otherwise defined function of public accountability. I doubt Mr. Ramcharan would argue that a UN Human Rights investigative body finding evidence of human rights transgressions in a UN member state is proof that the UN is dysfunctional.
I also find it hard to grasp the logic of Mr. Ramcharan’s third rhetorical question, that the Leader of the political party currently in executive power, and himself the third most constitutionally powerful person in the executive hierarchy, identifying the need for vigilance against corruption in the public procurement process is interpretable as evidence of autocracy. Is it his reasoning that a more democratically inclined leader would encourage, or not acknowledge, public sector corruption?
The learned academic asks rhetorically:
“And who should take responsibility for these facts, if not the government of the day?”
My answer is that all the players in the political system are responsible for how they engage with each other. The government of the day does not exist within a functional vacuum. For example, in the Chief Justice’ shutting down of Norton’s challenge to the appointments I referred to above, she cited the fact that at the time the appointments were made, there was no functional Opposition Leader to consult with in the first place. That isn’t a result of any intervention by government – the original Opposition Leader, Joseph Harmon, fresh out of the five months debacle of APNU+AFC trying to rig elections, had originally refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of Ali’s Presidency and thus to meet with him; and when he resigned, the opposition took months to send Norton, who has professed a policy of not shaking the President’s hand, to Parliament as Harmon’s replacement.
On the wider issue of assessing the state of autocracy versus democracy in Guyana, we can perhaps appeal to an impartial external arbiter. Take for example, Guyana’s current democratic index rating by international democracy watchdog Freedom House (no relation to the edifice on Robb Street) that gives Guyana a 73 [Democratic] rating out of 100 on its International Freedom Index: 30 out of 40 for political rights, and 43/60 for civil liberties. In the assessment category of Political Rights, the sub-category of Electoral Politics, we scored 3/4 in all three areas of assessment. The reason for the lost points? The actions of the APNU+AFC in 2020. For example, in response to question A-1, “Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?” the organisation notes:
“Long-delayed elections held in March 2020 were marred by serious attempted fraud. Then president David Granger eventually accepted a recount showing that Irfaan Ali of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) had won the presidency. Ali took up his post that August.”
Which brings me to another fact that continues to speak for itself, and which for me sadly undermines the otherwise sometimes sound credibility of Ramcharan’s interventions on preventing autocracy, and the need for sustained good governance – the issue of his continued erasure of the role the AFC played and continues to play in the deliberate undermining of [faith in] our local electoral mechanisms. In both my previous letters in response to his columns, I brought up this issue. In his own letter in response to mine, he ignores my observation altogether.
The architecture of democracy – the antithesis of autocracy – is constructed upon the will of the people, as expressed through elections. This measurement is the basis for appointment of commissions, of legislative authority, and of the right to spend state money on behalf of the people. It is critical therefore that all players respect the process and adhere to the pre-agreed rules of engagement,
The AFC, however, has been front and centre from March, 2020 to the present day in attempts to undermine the democratic system, either by direct participation or by the spreading of misinformation, both locally and internationally.
We are yet to see evidence of the Russians AFC executives and then ministers of government Cathy Hughes and Khemraj Ramjattan claimed to be in Guyana to rig in favor of the PPP; we are yet to see the SOPs that AFC executive and then minister of government David Patterson said the Coalition was in possession of and which mostly corresponded with Mingo’s now proven fraudulent figures; and we are yet to see evidence in any instance of the AFC’s continued contortions on the electoral system in general, particularly in its failure to get people to vote for it.
For example, in the area of assessment for Freedom House’ Guyana report, ‘B. Political Pluralism and Participation’, on the question (B3) of “Are the people’s political choices free from domination by forces that are external to the political sphere, or by political forces that employ extrapolitical means?”, Guyana scores a 3/4, losing another point. The key factor in us losing that point was this:
“Following the June 2023 local elections, the opposition AFC claimed that cash bribes and government favors were responsible for the ruling party’s strong performance in the polls, an allegation that Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo denied.”
Now, what was clearly not assessed in the report was that the AFC’s deliberate refusal to participate at a national level and the self-restricted participation of the PNC, was what overwhelmingly resulted in the PPP’s dominant showing, not unproven bribes and government favours. In fact, adjusted for parity, the PPP simply improved upon a dominance at recent local government elections that was established at the 2018 LGEs, while APNU+AFC was in executive power.
This tendency towards deliberate misinformation is in fact associated with the AFC, a party that Ramcharan somehow completely ignores in his assessment of autocracy from 2020 to now, but yet acknowledges when he calls for the major parties to elaborate a vision in his latest column, “Political leadership in a young and fragile multi-ethnic state” (SN – 24, October, 2024):
“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… 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.”
Dr. Ramcharan may be forgiven for not being aware of the fact that the ‘new’ leader previously served as Chair of the party before resigning in 2016, eight years, and gave yeoman service to the Granger political administration through its time in office, although he is absolutely correct on the absence of any comprehensive vision.
The need for a comprehensive vision by the leadership of major political parties is where I find myself in enthusiastic agreement with Ramcharan. For his part, I believe Dr. Irfaan Ali as President has been more action than articulation – in contrast to his immediate predecessor who was more slogan than substance – and can benefit from better expressing his One Guyana concept and how it is linked to his programmes. One thing he has however been pellucid on is the issue of electoral integrity, as expressed in his recent address to Parliament:
“A constitutional reform commission is reviewing the nation’s fundamental document to enhance governance, democracy and citizen’s rights. Significant changes to electoral laws have been implemented to protect the integrity of elections and the laws will now hold everyone accountable for their action in electoral processes. We cannot afford another 2020. We cannot risk once again the credibility of this country.”
Any leader expressing a vision for executive or even parliamentary power in this “young and fragile, multiethnic state” has to have respect for the will for the people as a fundamental pillar of that vision. The final fact I want to highlight that speaks for itself, in this debate on identifying and pushing back against autocracy, is that neither Hughes nor Norton has recognized expressly that the Ali administration has been legitimately elected, nor have they expressed any mea culpa, individually or institutionally, for their roles in the internationally observed and condemned attempts to rig the 2020 elections and thwart the democratic will of the people, in service to a would-be autocracy that could easily have succeeded were it not for the threat of international sanctions. In the lead up to elections next year, any honest arbiter would seek to encourage the PNC, and the AFC, to publicly acknowledge and apologize for what took place in 2020, and commit to respecting the will of the people come 2025.
Yours faithfully,
Ruel Johnson
