Dear Editor,
Looking beyond the official declaration of the National and Regional elections held on March 2, I wish to offer some comments on elections and governance generally, and specifically in relation to Guyana.
It has long been accepted that for democracy to prevail elections should be “free and fair”. It was I believe Edward Seaga, maybe as a result of elections violence and the emergence of “garrison constituencies” in Jamaica some time ago, who added a phrase “and free from fear”. More recently, the word “credible” has joined the requirements and “transparency of the process” has become a desideratum. These criteria for elections have not always been met and aberrations do occur. In the USA for example, under an arrangement euphemistically described as “redistricting”, minorities especially Afro Americans, are targeted for discrimination. Indeed voter suppression is still very much an item on the political agenda there. Further, there have been confirmed reports of a foreign power interfering in US elections to influence the results.
In other places, anecdotal evidence and allegations point to activities of partisan election officials which enable an elector to utilize more than one ballot, as well as the officials themselves completing unutilized ballot papers; and there are other malpractices.
On the other hand the practice of international observation of elections has developed. Its usefulness has been clearly demonstrated. That notwithstanding there have been criticisms of the operations of some international observers which should not be ignored. International election observers, like diplomats, are granted accreditation by the receiving State. As is well known, the role and modus operandi of diplomats in a receiving State have been codified in an international convention.
Protocols may already exist defining the role and functions of international observers and provisions included for attending to their breach. If so, breaches should be dealt with accordingly. If however protocols do not exist, their establishment would provide clarity for the interested and concerned parties.
Today elections are required to be free and fair, free from fear and credible and their processes are expected to be transparent. These criteria have not been universally met. Meeting them is therefore a work in progress for many countries. It is an objective to be vigorously pursued until attained. However, while elections held under those criteria are a necessary condition for democracy, the successful conduct of such elections is not sufficient to guarantee democratic governance.
With respect to Guyana, clearly strenuous efforts to meet the criteria should continue. It appears however that whether elections in Guyana have been perceived as free and fair or not, successive Governments have by and large, been adjudged by many constituents of those who lost the elections to be prejudicial in attending to their interests reflecting the fact that the elections may have an underlying theme of what may be called “pon-topism”. A fundamental issue to be resolved therefore, is how to develop for the post-election situation a system of governance which will enjoy acceptance across political divisions.
There is however a related matter and it concerns national decision making. At the Constitutional Conference held in London in 1963, our political leaders then – Burnham, D’Aguiar and Jagan (in alphabetical order) – could not agree on a number of issues including the electoral system. They however agreed to append their signatures to a letter to the British Chairman of the Conference which included the following: “We are agreed to ask the British Government to settle on their own authority all outstanding issues, and we undertake to accept the decisions”. In my view, our leaders by that action, abdicated their responsibility and in effect contracted out decision making on settling certain important national issues. Since then, there have been some efforts at localising decision making by political leaders on issues designed to deal with the system of governance and the people’s needs. I have in mind the Burnham/Jagan exchanges of 1985 and the subsequent Jagdeo/Hoyte and Jagdeo/Corbin talks and agreements. Those actions however, did not produce the desired results. I believe it is now incumbent on our political leaders to repatriate and domesticate the capacity which has been contracted out.
More generally, what seems to be needed can be summed up simply as trust in Government by the overwhelming majority of the citizens. This is a simple statement but a difficult task, necessary but difficult, in short a difficult necessity. There is no magic solution. I suggest both short and long-term measures are required.
Although the talks between political leaders mentioned above did not yield the anticipated results, the mechanism may be worthy of being repeated if a careful examination of the process reveals reasons for failure and avoidable pitfalls.
There is also the belief, variously expressed, that constitutional reform can contribute to improvement in governance. This should be a priority for action.
Meanwhile, existing provisions of the Constitution which have a bearing on the issue of governance should be fully implemented. For instance, take Article 13 which reads as follows: “The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision making that directly affect their wellbeing”.
What steps have been taken by successive Governments to give life to this Article? Should the political parties which contested the last elections be asked to say what actions will be on their agendas? Do non-governmental actors such as the Private Sector Commission, the Bar Association and the Trade Unions have ideas for action on this matter?
Other deficits to be addressed relate to political behaviour and more generally the political culture. The fundamental question is how does change occur in political behaviour and political culture to encourage a less toxic environment and a more accommodating attitude to cooperation.
The cut and thrust of politics will inevitably spawn adversarial situations but must such situations necessarily lead to acrimony and destructive outcomes as happens too often with negotiations? The purpose of negotiations is after all to reach reconciliation and agreement. They involve give and take and compromise and can be conducted not only through direct contact between the parties but also by using envoys or back channels. In other words, different paths can lead to success.
There are also less tangible impediments to change such as the retreat from civility and respect for hallowed institutions and norms. The answers to the questions raised can best be found in a collective national effort.
I have sometimes given thought to two matters. The first relates to the two major political parties and the narratives they have within them of each other and wondered what orientation this gives them in their interaction and whether a significant element of negativity resides in that orientation. The second relates to pejorative images of the ‘other’ existing in our multi-racial society. Is it possible that programmes used for conflict resolution/management, appropriately modified, can be helpful with regard to those two matters?
One example which can be looked at involved youth camps in which the participants included Israelis and Palestinians, Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants and post-Apartheid South African youths. The participants under the guidance of counsellors were able to interact and learn by direct contact about each other’s views and beliefs and to be involved in activities aimed at enabling them to be agents of change and new thinking. Hopefully, the exposure helped them to be more understanding in approaching the problems facing them at home, as well as to become better able to be part of the solution, rather than the perpetuation of those problems. Just a thought.
Yours faithfully,
Rashleigh E Jackson
