Considering that the PPP never stops talking about democracy, it surely has the most opaque internal ‘democratic’ processes of all the parties. Mr Donald Ramotar emerged from the inner sanctum of Freedom House on Monday to declare himself “humbled” by the consensus vote which made him the PPP’s presidential candidate. ‘Vote’ was stretching it a bit, since it seems there wasn’t a vote as such. First Mr Rohee and Ms Teixeira withdrew from the race, following which, the media were given to understand, Mr Ramkarran followed suit. Since there was no one left in the race except Mr Ramotar, he automatically became the candidate. Was the procedure democratic? That seems doubtful.
In his usual meandering style, Chairman of the Selection Process, Dr Roger Luncheon, told the media on Monday: “This consensual choice reflects the party leadership’s commitment to maintaining party unity, continuing progress in Guyana and building stronger unity at all levels of the Guyanese nation.” That it reflects the PPP leadership’s commitment to maintaining party unity, there is no doubt, but no one beyond the perimeter of Freedom House believes that it represents progress, let alone that it will build stronger unity in the nation.
There are different models for selecting leaders and/or presidential (or prime ministerial) candidates across the democratic world, although in the PPP Mr Moses Nagamootoo was the only one who favoured opening up the vote to the wider party membership. The other front runner, Mr Ralph Ramkarran, while not arguing for such a radical change, did promote the holding of a secret ballot in the thirty-five member Central Committee, although no less a person than the President let it be known that he preferred a vote by acclamation. Mr Ramotar himself appeared to concur with the latter approach. However, various correspondents writing to the newspapers advocated the necessity of a secret ballot, and perhaps it began to occur to the mandarins in Freedom House that the public saw a secret ballot as an essential element of democratic practice.
Whatever the case, on Monday Dr Luncheon said, “The Central Committee agreed that in the interest of complete transparency, if there was ultimately a contest involving more than one interested candidate, members would exercise their choice of presidential candidate by secret ballot voting.” But in the end, of course, after all the other candidates withdrew, the question of a secret ballot became superfluous. What is clear is that pressure was applied to Mr Ramkarran to withdraw after Mr Rohee and Ms Teixeira did so, in order that there would not have to be a vote.
The only question to be asked is, why would any political party which is so fond of touting its democratic credentials be so anxious to avoid a ballot. The senior echelons, including the President, wanted Mr Ramotar to secure the candidacy. Either they thought Mr Ramkarran could win, or they thought he would lose. If they thought he had a chance of winning, then they can be accused of manipulation by ensuring there was no ballot; if, on the other hand, they thought he would lose, what did they have to gain by blocking an election?
The answer to that question may be a little more complex. The main reason has to do with the principle of democratic centralism which has had the party in its thrall for decades. It is something of a misnomer, since there is plenty centralism, and a great deal less democracy involved. It is the standard modus operandi for the central committees of all Marxist-Leninist parties, and the PPP is still a Marxist-Leninist party. It allows for a unified front to be presented, and commits every member to each ‘consensus’ decision and seals their lips thereafter. In critical cases such as this, the apparent unanimity is achieved as said above, by applying pressure, and no doubt in some instances by offering inducements. In any event, it allows the strong forces on a body such as the Central Committee to secure the outcome they want. Even if, therefore, Mr Ramkarran was destined to lose heavily, they would not have wanted him to disrupt the tradition of democratic centralism and introduce an element which might become institutionalized and undermine party control of outcomes further down the road.
It is true, as Mr Ramkarran pointed out at an earlier stage, that the Central Committee is no stranger to the secret ballot; however, those elections have never been as critical as the choice of a presidential candidate, and there, at least, the less democracy and the more centralism there is the more comfortable the patricians will be. There are ancillary reasons too, why they would have wanted to project an image of unity; with the Jagans gone fissures in the PPP hierarchy have become apparent to the outside world. With talk of the party being in disarray, this was a way of projecting a vision of unity and harmony going into an election.
What is less clear is why Mr Ramkarran should have allowed himself to be steamrolled into withdrawing his nomination. If he is interested in the welfare of the party which he has served for so long, then it was important to assist it to move into the modern world, and accept genuine democratic processes. Even if he only expected to secure two or three votes, it still needed him to hold out for a vote by secret ballot, because that would have set a precedent for the next time around. As it is, he retreated at the last minute, and we have the usual manufactured unity behind closed doors and those with the clout in Freedom House maintaining their sway.
While Dr Luncheon, cited above, was very liberal in his use of the word ‘unity,’ what happened does not reflect true unity. But in politics in this country, appearances are everything, and that is all Freedom House is concerned about. However, as the oldest mass party in this country and an integral element in our multi-party system, the PPP owes it to itself as well as to the nation, to move into the modern era and set a democratic example; it cannot continually lecture the electorate about democracy if its own practices are not in line with current norms. The democratic centralism to which the PPP is so attached is an anachronism; it cannot stay mired in the past, while it is overtaken by other parties presenting a more credible democratic image. Who would have thought two decades ago, that in this regard the PNC of all parties, would have been setting the example to the PPP?
