We are on the cusp of a new year. At a personal level it will bring changes, hopefully for the better for many people, but at a national level it will be hard to indulge any optimism about the coming months. There is little expectation, for example, that our politics will be different, that our politicians will modify their thinking, or that the structures and systems which form the scaffolding of governance will suddenly begin to function effectively, let alone transparently, lawfully and fairly.
It is true we live in a complex multi-ethnic society, but we are hardly alone in that regard, even in our own region, and besides, our problems pale into insignificance when compared with countries like Syria or Lebanon, for example. As far as domestic matters are concerned, 2025 will be dominated by the election, which is enough to make even hardened electoral watchers feel a tad weary.
The pattern never changes. In fact it has started already with $100,000 hand-outs from government, which they will follow with an intensified campaign of vilifying opponents, i.e. Guyana’s very own version of the carrot and stick routine. Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo will undoubtedly lead the chorus for Freedom House given his history of relieving himself of as many derogatory remarks about the opposition as he can cram into the average peroration.
All of which is not to say that those who sit on the opposite benches in the National Assembly will be coy about answering in kind. It is just that since the PPP/C are the ones in office there is more room for APNU and others in between their vituperative remarks to point out genuine issues of administration. Furthermore it is the government which has the bigger pulpit with its control of key media outlets, not forgetting the resources to traverse the country to talk to all communities as well as dispense largesse.
And while the language that the politicians on all sides use is likely to be antagonistic at best and probably sometimes vulgar, President Irfaan Ali no doubt will be talking about unity, just as he did at Christmas. He was reported by DPI as telling the congregation at the Life Spring Ministries Church on Christmas Day that the government was committed to building a more united and equitable Guyanese society. “Everything that we do, and everything we commit towards as a government is to enable the reflection of love, the unity of our people, and the long-term sustainability and prosperity of our country,” he was quoted as saying.
Did his listeners really believe him considering there is no love lost between his government and the opposition? As for unity, the President and the ruling party can’t even rise to the inclusiveness required by the Constitution, let alone anything more ambitious. As a consequence, to give one example, after many years we still have an acting Chancellor and Chief Justice. Never mind the amount of time which has elapsed, our politicians, particularly those from the ruling party are still fighting battles which belong to a much earlier generation. One is reminded of Talleyrand’s famous remark on the restored Bourbon dynasty in France, that they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.
Of course the PNC, however it describes itself, cannot move on either until it comes to terms with its past. It set itself back decades as a result of the attempt to rig the 2020 election on its behalf, and it does itself no favours with its elaborate attempts to cover that with spurious allegations about election procedures. But whether the PPP likes it or not, in conjunction with the AFC it is the official opposition under the Constitution, and the government is required to deal with it. When it refuses to do so, it is not only behaving unconstitutionally, it is also making nonsense of any talk of unity.
While the situation of political parties in Suriname is rather different from here, political developments there might have some lessons for us. On Christmas Eve, Suriname strongman Desi Bouterse died. He had been convicted early in his career in absentia in a Dutch court for drug-trafficking, and finally last year in a Suriname one for the 1982 murder of leading citizens following a coup.
After relinquishing power to a democratic government he was to seize it again by force, but finally was returned to office for ten years by the legitimate route of an election.
The electorate has very varied feelings about him, although he commanded devoted support from the members of his party until the end of his life. Writing in StarNieuws on December 26th, Vincent Roep had the following to say: “[Bouterse’s] death offers a moment of reflection on the role of abuse of power, the collective trauma he left behind and the difficult road to reconciliation.”
He went on to write that Bouterse’s legacy was intertwined with the contradictions in the society with his supporters on the one hand regarding him as having stood up for national pride, versus those who view him as a tyrant who had caused suffering and had undermined democracy. These polarised views, he said, were reinforced by the complex historical context of the 1980s, and a path to reconciliation was dependent on understanding those dynamics. “Only by recognizing that the past is complex and does not fit into a simple dichotomy of good and evil, Suriname can take the road to a common future,” he wrote.
Whether Suriname will be able to do so remains to be seen, but Mr Roep’s approach to the past is not without relevance here, even though we have nothing comparable to Bouterse’s excesses. However, the reality is we are about to enter an election year, and our politicians learnt long ago that the most effective campaign consists not in making promises about future development, but in denigrating the opposition, because that is what crowds like to hear.
While there are segments of civil society which might be prepared to take our political history beyond the level of hagiography on the one hand and calumny on the other, an election period is not an auspicious time for candour. There might be greater hope in a post-election era, but even then the individual parties will still have to confront their history in a credible way. Perhaps in our case a review of the historical dynamics may have to await a new generation of politicians.
Even as things stand, there may be room for small progressive changes in the political landscape if the major parties were willing to cooperate and compromise in certain areas. However, if the PPP still intends to proceed into the new year eschewing this approach even when it is constitutionally required, then it really has to stop lecturing us about unity. It is at best fantasy and at worst dishonest.