In their 2012 book, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty – Guyanese would no doubt find this particular juxtaposition of three Ps somewhat intriguing and ironic, even if unintentional – the Turkish-American economist Daron Acemoglu of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the British political scientist James A Robinson of Harvard University provide some fascinating ideas about economic development in both developing and developed countries. In particular, they make a convincing argument that the right political structure is a necessary precursor to economic development. More specifically, they argue that it is pluralistic democracy that is fundamental to the enjoyment of long-lasting economic development.
In the context of the ongoing fallout from the global economic crisis that broke in 2008 and against the backdrop of the struggles of Caricom countries to achieve sustainable levels of economic growth and financial stability since independence, notwithstanding generally reasonable levels of GDP per capita (Guyana and Haiti apart), it is an interesting thesis that Messrs Acemoglu and Robinson put forward.
Before we proceed, however, we should point out that pluralistic democracy is not the same thing as winning the plurality but not the majority of the vote in a general election and then trying to govern as if enjoying the approval of the majority of the population. Pluralistic democracy, rather, involves more than simple majority rule and is what should obtain in a country in which there are a number of different interest groups competing for advantage, with no one group realistically capable of achieving a majority. That is to say, if no one party can win the majority, all have, perforce, to compete for public approval by being willing and able to negotiate their way to their objectives.
Inevitably, this means that the practice of politics is, as it ever was and should ever be, premised on the need for consensus and compromise. Ideally, the competition for influence and power among opposing parties in a pluralistic democracy should result in policies that benefit more than just one group of people and redound to the benefit of the society as a whole.
Clearly, in the Commonwealth Caribbean, with the inherited Westminster model of parliamentary democracy and in Guyana, with our hybrid democratic system, pluralistic democracy does not exist. Indeed, the point has been made before that Westminster-type democracy, as practised in the Caribbean, usually leads to a dictatorship of the majority. This is particularly true in those countries where the private sector, academia, the media and civil society in general are weak and either unwilling or unable to challenge a status quo based on the narrow political interests of the ruling party, rather than bring pressure to bear in the national interest. Political power is, as we know only too well, all about controlling the commanding heights of the economy and politics then becomes a zero sum game.
But the mother parliament in Westminster functions well enough in the United Kingdom because the UK, like most of Western Europe and the USA, is a mature, functioning, pluralistic democracy where no one group can hold a monopoly on political power. This is especially so because the existence of basic civil rights, such as freedom of speech, prevents any one group or party from dominating for too long to the exclusion of others. The example of the West is that, given pluralism and political rights, people will enjoy better economic opportunities.
It may well be that there are groups in this country that do not want anything resembling pluralistic democracy. We move to suggest, however, that the type of equitable economic development and reasonable levels of prosperity that most Guyanese seek will be beyond us if we cannot build a political system that is more pluralistic. Why Nations Fail should be required reading for all our politicians.
