Dear Editor,
After years of liberal democracy in Guyana, significant changes in values, customs and mores once held as sacrosanct are now manifesting themselves in different hues and shades. This specific brand of Guyanese liberal democracy has risen due to the political, social and economic developments the populace has experienced over many years. Being peculiar to Guyana, this brand of liberal democracy had a profound social, cultural and political impact on the social psychology and behavioural patterns of our citizenry. Values, customs and mores that were once looked upon by past generations as duty bound and steadfastly upheld, no longer hold the same relevance as they were in the past. Values such as respect for elders, senior citizens, and the solemnity attached to the observance of certain religious holidays, respect for heads of schools, teachers, law enforcement officers, religious leaders and democratically elected political leaders, have withered away with the passage of time.
The breakdown extends to disrespect for traffic laws and the ‘four C’s; language used at open air concerts by artistes and the manner in which we address one another. The recent call by President Ali to promoters not to have jollification events during the three days of national mourning and the response by some to do otherwise was but a the ‘tip of the iceberg’ that demonstrates the extent to which the changes have impacted our social and cultural lives. On the positive side, this peculiar brand of Guyanese liberal democracy has found expression in a genre of social liberalism at a government level that targets economic and social issues, such as poverty, welfare, infrastructure, health care, and education using government interventions to promote social justice and at the same time emphasize individual rights and freedoms within the framework of a liberal democracy and a mixed-economy.
A major factor impacting our liberal democracy is our country’s phenomenal rise as an oil and gas economy and the efforts by government to fight off challenges associated with the industry such as possible corrupt practices and the ‘Dutch Disease.’ The promotion and implementation of concepts like ‘One Guyana,’ Men on a Mission’ and ‘Good Governance’ as well as calls for greater tolerance, compassion, understanding and mutual respect for one another cumulatively help to temper the growth of the negative tendencies in our liberal democracy. The oil and gas sectors as a matter of public interest will continue to attract much attention at various levels with questions about the levelness of the playing field in respect to distribution of revenues being raised on the one hand, while implementation of local content laws and its applicability are debated on the other.
In the meantime, while debates on these issues rage, the state has implicitly decided to protect and promote its vital interests at home and abroad encouraging investments in infrastructure, agriculture, health and education while pursuing a foreign policy guided by national interests. Common in any liberal democracy are cases when the private sector sometimes get ahead of themselves, notwithstanding government’s declared policies. But the sector is not alone; non-state actors, along with sections of the business community become more assertive and self-deterministic in their reactions toward some government policies. Rapid economic development and growth within a liberal democratic framework bring in their wake challenges such as labour shortages, as well as a depletion of key and critical skill sets. In this regard, it is very likely that, with the importation of foreign labour, Guyana will not only experience a surge in population growth but will experience an impact on our customs and mores and put pressure on its social Infrastructure including health and education.
In defining its liberal democratic path, Guyana, has, through its low carbon development strategy, opted in favour of a qualitatively different trajectory. Some opposed to government’s policies, claim they scent racial and political discrimination and authoritarianism while others claim that sections of Guyanese big businesses are calling the shots. In a multi-ethnic liberal democracy such claims are pretty common place and should be no cause for alarm so long as the economic base and superstructure remain intact. Meanwhile, the parliament and the judiciary remain insulated from the Executive as they should be in a liberal democracy through the separation of powers. However, they are not immune to the rapid societal changes taking place within the meaning of our peculiar brand of liberal democracy. In the circumstances, the judiciary and magistracy have also been affected.
Self-inflicted institutional damage with the bizarre mathematical miscalculation of what constitutes half of sixty five coupled with cases being dismissed as having consumed valuable judicial time. At the level of the magistracy, claims have surfaced about decisions that purport to represent “double standards.” Sometimes parliament, though affected by the bad behaviour by a few of its members during its proceedings, managed to hold its own, notwithstanding efforts to discredit the institution as a whole, including those appointed to uphold its standing orders and proceedings and to ensure that good order prevails. But the details surrounding these occurrences hardly matter: what does, is that our brand of liberal democracy, strongly influenced by the deepening of social liberalism vertically and horizontally remains intact and is contributing to an increase in the social, political and cultural awareness of the populace who now enjoy the Guyanese brand of a liberal democracy in all its positive aspects and negative shortcomings.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
