Dear Editor,
One of the tests of democracy is that every few years, the baton of power passes to another party. Rarely has a ruling party anywhere in the world won four or more elections in a row. Whenever it happens, you will find evidence of corruption or evidence of the ruling party manipulating the playing field to the disadvantage of the opposition parties.
Case study – Guyana. The ruling party has won four elections in a row (1992, 1997, 2001, 2006) and is all but guaranteed to win in 2011. Does this mean that democracy cannot work in a society like Guyana, given its peculiarities like ethnic voting for ethnic parties and one group, Indians, making up 43.5 per cent of the population?
Many advocacy groups believe Guyana is not suited for multi-party democracy, and hence their advocacy of shared governance. (This concept is not the same as coalition government.) Simply put, it calls for the Indian majority party to share power with the minority African party. One such group is led by Dr David Hinds and Mr Tacuma Ogunseye and their call is even embraced by the leader of the African party, Mr Corbin.
Shared governance is a bad idea. It will lead to permanently institutionalizing ethnic voting. It has already been institutionalized where the majority of the population is concerned. But the Guyanese people and their leaders have got to re-engineer a new political culture that will give democracy a chance to take root in Guyana. Shared governance is the antithesis of democracy and if ever adopted will lead to endless problems between the Africans and Indians.
Studies show that racial groups will always be attracted to leaders and parties of their own race. And, that is ok. Mr Abu Bakr in a letter in the SN of Feb 18 wrote: “Without any kind of fear at all and in the best of worlds people vote race. They do in Trinidad without fear of violence or a flour ban.” A wonderful grain of truth. All ethnic or tribal groups the world over vote race.
However the issue is not that people vote race. It is the extremely high levels of race voting in Guyana that create the problem. Cross racial voting (with regard to PPP and PNC) is very low. Such high levels of racial voting have defied empirical trends and are not common in normal, functioning multiracial democracies. This is very troublesome, and suggests that democracy is unworkable.
For democracy to work in Guyana, cross-racial voting has to be within a band of 10 to 15 per cent. This can be easily achieved if the ethnic parties were to agree to sign a pact to end the practice of ethnic politics. In all ethnic or tribal groups, there will always be a segment of 10-15 per cent of people who will cast a vote based on issues, and outside of their ethnic party base. This is what is called the swing vote, which exists in all functioning democratic societies. It is this significant swing vote that makes democracy work, and gives it legitimacy. The pendulum of power swings from one party to another and gives peace, acceptance and stability to the society. Swing voters do not exist in Guyanese society. No need for tracking polls. Everyone’s mind is firmly made up to vote loyally for his/her ethnic party. It is religion. Thisprecisely what has got to change in Guyana.
You can almost sympathize with the folks calling for shared governance, until you realize that the real culprit in the society is the existence of ethnic parties. In 1992 we began a new era, one in which you have to win votes. Elections are all about winning votes. What has the PNC done since 1992? Absolutely not a single reform, not a single change. Do they need a James Carville to advise them on the electoral maths and how to win elections? Is this rocket science? There is a finite number of African votes. If they win every single African vote, what difference will it make? If stones cannot be turned into bread, so too the minority African vote cannot be manipulated to magically produce a winning tally of 51 per cent. It is this need to win votes across racial constituencies that drives an electoral strategy and platform.
In Guyana’s case the PNC has to win Indian votes if it wants to be a viable party. Somehow the PNC believes that putting up an African candidate, Brigadier Granger as leader, will help to project a multiracial image – a strategy that has not worked in four previous elections. Further this candidate says the army had no role in several stolen elections in the 1970s and 1980s despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
The party leader Robert Corbin says the PNC has nothing to apologize for, despite abundant evidence of creating and running a dictatorship for 28 years.
How do you create a comfort level to attract and win Indian votes?
Refusing to project a multiracial image and refusing to apologize makes for a foolish electoral strategy. The PNC simply does not understand how to do politics in a democratic environment. Many parties around the world change out of necessity in a changing environment. The PNC has demonstrated an inability to change, and this reveals a failed leadership.
The PPP has demonstrated it is the Indian clone of the PNC, choosing to remain an ethnic party. Its leader can only be an Indian. And, save and except the Amerindian vote, nearly all its votes come from Indians. The PPP regularly wins the election with practically no African support. This is not a broad-based mandate to run a country with such a unique racial breakdown.
Democracy is the best system of government ever since the Greeks devised it. The United States never ceases to perfect its democracy and in over 200 years it has produced a very stable society. No party remains in power for more than 2-4 cycles. The essence of democracy lies in the true practice of democracy. If the Guyanese nation needs help, there’s plenty available from the National Democratic Institute, the Carter Center and similar organizations.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
New York
