‘When socio-economic, racial, or religious differences give rise to extreme partisanship in which societies sort themselves into political camps whose worldviews are not just different but mutually exclusive, toleration becomes harder to sustain. Some polarization is healthy – even necessary – for democracy. And indeed, the historical experience of democracies in Western Europe shows us that norms can be sustained even where parties are separated by considerable ideological differences. But when societies grow so deeply divided that parties become wedded to incompatible worldviews, and especially when their members are so socially segregated that they rarely interact, stable partisan rivalries eventually give way to perceptions of mutual threat’ (Levitsky, Steven & Daniel Ziblatt (2019) How Democracies Die. Broadway Books, New York).
The authors defined democracy in a fairly minimalist way suited to a liberal democratic society, namely as ‘a system of government with regular, free and fair elections, in which all adult citizens have the right to vote and possess basic civil liberties such as freedom of speech and association.’ Today the threat to democracy comes in more subtle ways from elected politicians who legally and gradually erode the ‘guardrails’ of the democratic system under the guise of nationalism, fighting corruption and so on. They argue that while necessary, constitutions are incomplete and are backed up by various values and beliefs. The American constitution works reasonably well ‘but not, or not entirely, because of the constitutional system designed by the founders.’ Two norms are fundamental to the functioning of a democratic society: mutual toleration and institutional forbearance. These norms develop and are entrenched over time but can also be eroded as democracy dies.
As we shall see, neither of these norms has ever existed to any significant degree throughout Guyana’s political history and if you accept as I do that they are essential to the democratic process, it also suggest that the attainment of liberal democracy remains an aspiration and perhaps one that cannot be attained! Why is this so?
Colloquially translated, we are told that mutual toleration is the politicians’ collective willingness to agree to disagree. ‘Mutual toleration refers to the idea that as long as our rivals play by constitutional rules, we accept that they have an equal right to exist, compete for power, and govern. We may disagree with, and even strongly dislike, our rivals, but we nevertheless accept them as legitimate. This means recognizing that our political rivals are decent, patriotic, law-abiding citizens-that they love our country and respect the Constitution just as we do. It means that even if we believe our opponents’ ideas to be foolish or wrong-headed, we do not view them as an existential threat. Nor do we treat them as treasonous, subversive, or otherwise beyond the pale. We may shed tears on election night when the other side wins, but we do not consider such an event apocalyptic.’
The second norm is forbearance it means ‘patient self-control; restraint and tolerance’. It is ‘the action of restraining from exercising a legal right.’ … Institutional forbearance can be thought of as avoiding action that, while respecting the letter of the law, obviously violates its spirit. Where norms of forbearance are strong, politicians do not use their institutional prerogatives to the hilt, even if it is technically legal to do so, for such action could imperil the existing system.’
The American approach to presidential term limits provides a good example. ‘For most of American history, the two-term limit was not a law but a norm of forbearance. Before ratification of the Twenty-Second Amendment in 1951, nothing in the Constitution dictated that presidents step down after two terms. But Washington’s retirement after two terms in 1797 set a powerful precedent.’
It does not take much for one to realise that mutual tolerance and forbearance are largely absent from our current political system. No holds are barred as politicians seek to either ‘take back’ or ‘guard’ their country from the other side. There is absolutely no constraint in manipulating the law to either try to overturn presidential term limits that the party not very long ago agreed upon, or to negate the effects of a vote of no-confidence. The majority of supporters are at one with their leaders: the other side must never again come to government.
The slaveowners and later colonialists had no democratic pretence and the population generally viewed them as obstacles to be removed at the earliest opportunity. Such legitimacy as they had was based upon their control over the armaments of the state, and those who genuinely supported them in word or deed were viewed as Uncle Toms of one sort or another. Political independence was expected to liberate the masses from their tutelage, but this was not to be. To this day, Forbes Burnham’s PNC cannot live down its history of elections manipulation by way of the law, the legislature and the armed forces.
With the PPP/C’s electoral victory in 1992 came another period of great expectations, but with the death of Cheddi Jagan the regime he spawned demonstrated none of the intellect, patience, self-control, restraint or tolerance that are necessary to successfully manage a country such as Guyana. The party soon transmogrified into an ethnic autocracy hated by large sections of the people. Even out of office, it was still attempting to play with law by seeking to change the presidential term-limits and encouraging defections to recapture government.
Why this is so is to be found in the final sentence of the first paragraph of the essay; ‘When societies grow so deeply divided that parties become wedded to incompatible worldviews, and especially when their members are so socially segregated that they rarely interact, stable partisan rivalries eventually give way to perceptions of mutual threat.’ In such circumstances, particularly where racial or ethnic difference exist, free institutions are next to impossible as is ‘the united public opinion necessary to the working of a representative government. (John Stuart Mill (1861) Of nationality as connected with Representative Government).
Democracy is not dying or dead in Guyana: it has not yet been born. The problem is that Guyanese have been trying to make Guyana a normal liberal democratic state but the country’s ethnic configuration does not allow it to be so. Put another way, the norms of mutual toleration and forbearance, so critical to the democratic process, will not develop in the absence of a united public opinion and the latter cannot exist in the context of extreme ethnic polarization.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
