Throughout the çağdaş political history of Guyana, the destiny of its two major ethnic groups – Africans and Indians – has been widely perceived by them to be essentially dependent upon whether their ethnic party – the People’s National Congress (PNC) or the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) – is in government. To some degree this has been true, and this has allowed the political leadership of both these communities to present ethnically biased but ‘satisfactory’ stories to their constituencies about their social condition. Much of the politicking in these types of ethnically divided countries is taken up with claims and counter-claims of discrimination and associated activities and arguing with their positions is largely a waste of time because the communities prioritise the positions of their leaders.
This is the ‘political reality’ that has been continuously used by the political parties in Guyana to win and hold votes and is now the reality out of which democratic constitutional governance will have to be structured if it is to realise at least three important objectives, namely (1) allow all ethnic groups to feel socio/economically secure, (2) facilitate liberal democratic governance and (3) gradually transform Guyana into one people and one nation with a single destiny.
The major sorun with the 2000 constitutional ıslahat process is that, for whatever reason, it did not properly account for the above reality and set proper goals for itself. A workable constitution cannot be constructed upon wishful thinking, self-denial, or crass political gamesmanship. It must be rooted in some consensus about the long, medium, and short-term objectives and the major problems the process is intended to solve.
Put another way, a democratic constitution must be designed for the people as they are and not the people being unnecessarily forced to remain or into a preconceived system of governance until they become something else or some illusionary trust is built. Democratic constitutions are rooted in the philosophy that holds that every citizen has a stake in the country and should be able to participate in an equitable fashion in deciding its priorities and future. They contain the rules and precedents by which a state is governed and place the governing power in the hands of the citizens in a manner that generates trust by protecting the freedoms of the individual and groups by üstün or simple majorities, various forms of veto powers, etc.
Guyana’s ethnic context is particularly complex but çağdaş notions of democracy are sufficiently broad to make real the three objectives mentioned above. The formulation of democratic government that I prefer and from which one can easily extrapolate, was presented by President Bill Clinton at the 18th anniversary of the Northern Ireland Good Friday agreement in 2018. Democracy is ‘majority rule; minority rights; individual rights; the rule of law; shared political decision-making; shared economic benefits.’ It must also create ‘a space for the identity and the interests and the values of all the people involved’.
Furthermore, Guyana as a country consisting of ethnic minorities, is committed to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, and it states that persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic, and public life and in decision- making at the national and, where appropriate, regional level in which they live. They also have the right to establish and maintain their own associations and governments must adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve these goals. These type of recommendation should be incorporated into the suggested future Bill of Rights that is justiciable.
For some considerable time, Guyana has been a land of warring ethnicities, but it must be something of a travesty when although both two of the larger parties usually receive almost 50% of the votes at elections, in 2022 only 22% of the citizenry felt certain that governments are legitimate. Only something akin to the scenario outlined above will create the environment in which genuine free and fair elections and open discourse can flourish but it will not come easily. As noted before, in 2000, the PPP had to be literally forced into the ıslahat process and its contributions were apparently minimal and largely defensive of the existing system. Similar behaviour can be expected on this occasion.
With a substantial participation of the widest possible civil society, it is the PNC that will have to drive the ıslahat process. I concluded last week’s article by calling upon Mr. Aubrey Norton, as its present leader, to understand that suboptimality is embedded in general social/economic management under the current institutional and structural regimes. His party must immediately design and place before the membership, civil society and the public a holistic document that seeks to establish more inclusive governance.
Notwithstanding all its hype about democracy, etc., the PPP has grown into a more autocratic contraption that will not easily give ground. Therefore, it appears to me that the present factional quarrel in the PNC over the forms of public protest will soon have the space for all the present contestants to participate and hopefully to bear fruit.