In an article published in SN on August 27 – “Whither Guyana: Autocracy or democracy?” Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan, a former senior UN official and regular contributor to SN, concludes that in Guyana there are “shades” of autocracy. The events that give rise to the “shades” are: “official inquisitions into the tax status of NGOs; calls for new laws to ‘regulate’ NGOs;” “public campaigns of vilification against particular NGOs and their leaders;” and “‘highest level’ admonitions of judges carrying out their duties in good faith.” Dr. Ramcharan argues that while Guyana remains within the sphere of Democracy Inc., until it devises a “trusted” system of governance, “it will remain precariously poised between democracy and autocracy.” He argues that “it would help us to navigate our way inside Democracy Inc. if we could negotiate a new system of governance that would give every Guyanese a sense of belonging, or ownership, of their system of Governance.” Presumably, this new system of governance which is being called for is “inclusive governance” or “power-sharing.” which “those now in government have, so far, side-stepped.”
Accusations of autocratic or authoritarian behaviour have been hurled at many countries with widely differing political systems. Dr. Ramcharan lists some that Applebaum suggests are not liberal. They include China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Myanmar, Cuba, Syria and others. I do not know if Applebaum considered authoritarian pro-Western countries such as most Arab states or Singapore which, like Hungary and Poland under its previous government, have functioning parliamentary systems. Dr. Ramcharan concedes that Guyana remains within the sphere of democracy but is “precariously poised between democracy and autocracy.” Why? Mainly because there is not a system of trusted government that provides the sense of “belonging” to Guyanese. And what is that system? Inclusive governance or power sharing!
There is no vilification of NGOs of which I am aware. A few are sharply criticized and accused of having political agendas. Those criticisms are responses to NGOs. Where it is perceived that NGOs are motivated by political bias, not all being pristine pure, the Government calls them out. In relation to the judiciary and magistracy, there have been criticisms by political figures on two occasions within the past eighteen months and several by the Attorney General. In no case was the decision of the judicial or magisterial official challenged on the basis that it was politically biased or motivated. These few and scattered events do not invite a sense of impending doom of NGOs or their independence and that a judiciary that frequently rules against the perceived interests of the Government, feels constrained. It should be noted that Dr. Ramcharan made no claim that freedom of the press is under assault or that Parliament is being subverted. Attacks on press freedom or parliamentary democracy are the first signs of attempts to establish autocratic rule. These among the first institutions that come under scrutiny when autocrats are on the move.
Guyana political condition is characterized by the struggle for ethno-political dominance, not a struggle for inclusive governance or shared governance. There is not now, and has never been, any widespread campaign or popular support for inclusive or shared governance by the supporters of either of the major political parties or the public. The promotion of inclusive or shared governance has always been merely efforts initiated by political elites of both main political parties, and hangers-on like myself, save that the PPP adopted such a policy in 1977 but abandoned it in 1992 and APNU+AFC did the same for the 2015 elections but likewise abandoned it immediately after. These ideas have been disseminated through letters to the press, articles, in TV programmes and other such activities. They have been promoted by armchair advocacy, not by the popular will. At the present time neither political party has resumed the embrace of inclusive or shared governance and placed them on their agendas. In the absence of broad popular support, the implementation of inclusive or shared governance would be an undemocratic imposition on the people of Guyana. In the circumstances, the failure to implement inclusive or shared governance can hardly place Guyana within the “shades” of autocracy or in the netherworld between autocracy and democracy.
In order to achieve a state of shared governance in Guyana, political parties have to be first persuaded to adopt its implementation as policy. They then have to convince their supporters, historically conditioned to ethnic adherence in the exercise of their political choices, to abandon that sense of security it gives them and place their trust in another, untested, system of security by trusting the ‘other side,’ protection against which was the historical driving force of ethno-political dominance. The implementation of share governance is going to involve time and a lengthy political process. Those who support shared governance, like Dr. Ramcharran, believe that while it may not eliminate ethnic voting patterns, it will reduce the sense of loss and disaffection felt by the minority that loses and help to eventually heal the deep and historic ethnic fissures in our society. The fact that such a process has not yet commenced is, combined with the other factors or not, is hardly a sign or a shade of incipient autocracy.