Dear Editor,

In recent times many of our leading intellectuals have been expressing their learned views on what to them democracy entails or should mean for Guyana. Strictly speaking there are many aspects to the word democracy. Indeed, as I sit to pen this letter I have on my bed a book entitled ‘Democracy’ which is over 600 pages long. In the West, while it is held that a major feature of procedural democracy is fair and free elections, questions can be asked how can an election be considered fair when the electorate is bombarded by the propaganda of one political party because that political party has unequal access to the mass media based upon its ‘war chess’ funded by interest groups.

Then there are those who believe that governing parties have the right to do almost anything once they gained 50+1 % of the votes at general elections. They argue that a party earning the right to govern from such a system has earned the right to implement its programmes and policies unhindered. In Guyana such a belief is dangerous at one level and inefficient at another. Indeed, during the reign of the coalition parties, Gail Teixeira was reported of accusing the then government of having a one seat majority and behaving as though it had a hundred percent of the votes. If indeed the then government was behaving as described by the honourable lady, she was right in her criticism. For it cannot be just to relegate the losing party to the opposition benches and not allowing it to effectively influence policies and programmes even though it secured 49% of the votes.

The problem with Miss Teixeira’s argument, however, is that it lacks sincerity, that it was/is opportunistic. Today, the PPP with a similar one seat majority behaves in similar manner for which she expressed disgust and disdain, but she expresses no objections. That she behaves in this manner should not surprise us, after all it was Vice President Jagdeo who according to a Kaieteur News report of 20th September, 2022, warned us that “politicians are not the most honest people.”

This problem with a 50+1 right to rule unchallenged, ignoring the concerns of the other 49% of the population is dangerous, unconscionable, unfair and disrespectful to half of the population. In today’s Guyana there two things about the 50+1 approach to democracy that makes it particularly dangerous. First, the high level of ethnic/racial animosity. Second, the enormous power and authority that such a system bestows on the government over the management and decision making reference matters related to our oil resource. A resource, which is seen as the principle resource for fueling Guyana’s speedy development.

Therefore, when Kaieteur News of 20th August 2023 reports Vice-President Jagdeo as telling the nation that he will not take a matter of significant importance regarding oil to the parliament, since in his words, “Where the grandstanding takes place,” he was being dismissive of the views of half of the Guyanese people. Further we can make four other observations on his outburst. First, his stance is in complete opposition to the mature view (deceitful or not) expressed by Gail Teixeira, a long standing and senior operative of his party – the PPP. Second, in which part of the democratic world does ‘grandstanding’ not occur in the legislative branch?

Third, by what logic does the PPP, with an infinitesimal advantage in parliament feels that in a democracy it is proper to take upon itself the right to make decisions for all Guyana without consulting with the other half of government -the opposition, which represents half of the Guyanese people? Fourth, Jagdeo’s nonsense that if it is taken to parliament it will be bugged down in debates is ridiculous. That is one of the aspects of a healthy democracy. In totalitarian states the all knowing leader and party make the decisions without consulting others. In a democracy we discuss, we have intellectual battles before crucial decisions are made. Yes, this is likely to slow legislations down. But the democratic process demands no less.

So now we come to ex-Prime Minister and Ambassador to the United States – Mr. Samuel Hinds, writing in the Kaieteur News of 24th August 2024, Hinds says “Afro Guyanese and indeed all Guyanese are invited and welcome to join with us the PPP/C sharing in our vision, participating and contributing in our realization… ” What is this – “join with us the PPP/C sharing in our vision… ”? Seems as though Hinds, like Jagdeo, does not value inclusivity, a cardinal principle of democracy. Seems he too did not listen to that stalwart of his party when she raged about the coalition having a one seat advantage and behaving as though it had a hundred percent of the votes.

At Guyana’s last general elections, half of the population made clear its objection to the PPP and its vision for the nation. Therefore, logic suggest that the vision for the county needs to be crafted by both the opposition and the government coming together allowing room for the wishes and views of both halves of the country to shape that vision. Surely that has to be what democracy in action has to mean in Guyana in view of our reality expressed by our voting pattern? It is the people of Guyana who must define the “vision” for Guyana, not a party that enjoys one seat advantage in Parliament in a country where ethnic difference tremendously influence voting patterns.

Guyana, today even with its high level of migration, is a land still filled with men and women of high intellect and patriotism. Why then are they making so little mark on the direction of our nation? The offerings of Teixeira, Jagdeo and Hinds stated in their own words above, make it clear that the deepening of democracy in Guyana cannot be entrusted to the PPP in its present form. Given that it is possible that the PPP can win general elections scheduled for this year, what can Guyanese hold on to with some hope that an equitable and just Guyana is at hand?

One cannot deny that constitutional reform is important. But the PPP is not expected to agree to changes to the constitution that it perceives as undermining its return to power. Nothing in the PPP’s behaviour throughout its history suggests that fair play and the wellbeing of the nation takes precedence to love of power and greed. Indeed in fairness, I don’t think the PNC in the PPP’s place would behave any different. But in the best scenario where we envisage meaningful constitutional reform is agreed on, that alone cannot save us in terms of bringing into being a just society. A constitution cannot answer to all the challenges in inter group relationships or prevent selfish men and women from taking advantage of opportunities for self-aggrandizement that such challenges will give rise to. The USA is a good example.

In a nutshell, the challenges facing Guyana is no different from that facing most countries today – finding leaders whose love of country supersedes selfishness. So much so, that they are willing to compromise and reach across the table in brotherhood to those they previously perceive as enemies. All done by men filled with determination and commitment of creating a just society. Like I said earlier, Guyana still have such men and women. It is time for such men of high integrity to offer themselves for leadership in Guyana. The country demands and deserves no less at this time.

Sincerely,

Claudius Prince