When I lived in the Cayman Islands, I became friendly with a young businessman there largely based on our interest in Caribbean culture, personalities, social movements, etc. With my flexible schedule, I would drop by his office unannounced, and we would chat about whatever matters were currently on the regional radar. We subscribed to various literary publications, and we would exchange reading matter. I came to know Philip (not his real name) as an erudite Caymanian, and a strong nationalist, but one who would come to a subject with a balanced view, and indeed that latter quality was the basis of our friendship.
In time, Philip entered politics and won a seat, and it was no surprise to see him, in his second term, rising to be a Minister, but the surprise was to see, in our conversations, the almost immediate change in the man. In just a few months, he had become completely polarized spouting only the rhetoric of his political party and dismissing in one stroke anything or anyone from the opposing camp.
I was reminded of Philip’s transformation just this week watching an American writer, Mickey Edwards, on the Charlie Rose television programme, promoting a book called The Parties Versus the People, in which he bemoans the gridlock positions of the Republicans and the Democrats in his country.
Edwards noted the American founders’ resistance to political parties because of their divisional nature, and says his country’s current political gridlock is a consequence of ideology constantly trumping compromise.
He says, “The party position is they have an ideology and they are not going to compromise; they would rather fall on their swords.”
In such scenarios – the one in Cayman, 15 years ago, and the one in America now – we see the essential concrete condition of party politics, that of blanket commitment to ideology, creating virtually impenetrable barriers between the major competing groups where one side automatically rejects, and even mocks the proposals or comments from the other side. It is a universal condition so that even here in Guyana we have political leader Nigel Hughes saying, “Politics has become a battle for total victory rather than a method of government open to all significant groups.”
It is this clear and unwavering commitment to the one view that is behind most of the disenchantment with the political process that exists now among large numbers of citizens whether it’s in Washington or Athens or Georgetown.
The oft expressed definition of politics “as the art of the possible” by the German politician Otto von Bismarck was obviously pronounced in 1867; the modern political party sees rejection of an opposing political view as fundamental to its operation and its success.
No political activist anywhere, elected or self-established, will be heard proclaiming support or even grudging admiration for any idea or action generated by his/her political opponent. Further, several politically aligned persons here have told me, in so many words, “Nobody in that other party is any good; they are all a waste of time.” Further still, those comments have come from both sides of the political aisle; that tells you that reasoned assessment has been replaced by mental concrete.
It is difficult to remain unmoved by this rigidity particularly in a relatively small fish bowl such as Guyana where one often encounters our politicians socially. Unlike Toronto, where I lived for 22 years and never met a single politician, one sees or meets our political figures here regularly; we shake hands with them sometimes just a few hours after hearing them declare some solidarity position that is untenable, and it happens on both sides.
In certain cases, it can make conversation with such individuals difficult. But again, that is the nature of what politics today requires of them.
The convention of collective responsibility that obtains in so many democracies requires that you present party unanimity always, so the politically aligned person you may be upset with is simply following the rules. As one former participant in the process here put it, “When you are in politics and politically aligned, you find yourself promoting and defending what your party is saying, even if it is indefensible.”
In his book on US political parties, referring to this condition, the writer Mickey Edwards says, “It is not the people; it’s the system.”
It is sobering to note that this condition is universal, not just Guyana’s. In the most successful and admired countries on earth, from the tiny Cayman Islands, with the highest per capita income in the Caribbean, to the all-powerful all-influential USA, the condition lives.
At the present time, in Washington, when the criticisms of Obama come in, the Democratic response is that the knock is driven either by prejudice, or lack of knowledge, or outright idiocy.
No Democratic voice is heard saying, “Hold on. There may be some merit here.” No Republican is on CNN praising an Obama programme.
For countries such as Guyana, with two dominant political forces, the condition has particular significance since it means that the ascension of any one political party to power automatically means that the views of half of its citizens will be either given paltry attention or none at all. We are seeing it on an almost daily basis here, with seemingly ridiculous positions being fiercely defended, and with the few efforts to conciliate being rebuffed by both sides.
There are some voices asking for reason, among them our Speaker Mr Raphael Trotman who recently urged our Parliamentarians to “disengage from this confrontational style of politics and work in a reconciling setting.” But the historical evidence, and indeed the current one, suggests that the gates to discourse are closed and padlocked. Winston Churchill’s comment about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others is particularly apt in partisan politics.
Whether we live in San Fernando, Toronto, Birmingham or Georgetown, it is axiomatic that the disposition of political parties to ritually reject and deny and exclude will confront us. It is the immovable concrete of party politics. Until some other system emerges, so it will continue to go.
