By Dr Bertrand Ramcharan Seventh Chancellor of the University of Guyana
(The author, a Barrister with a doctorate in law from the LSE, also has a BA (Hons). in Philosophy from the University of London).
The great debate in Plato’s classic, The Republic was about the philosophy of governance. It is evident that there is, in contemporary Guyana, a great debate underway about the philosophy of governance. On one side, there is a point of view: let us exploit the new-found wealth as much as we can for the development of our country. On the other side, it is argued that we must proceed cautiously, with due regard to the need to protect the environment, and mindful of the importance of meeting the basic needs of our people.
How are we to think this through – respectfully and dispassionately? Fortunately, a highly-praised new book by Daniel Chandler, Free and Equal: What Would a Fair Society Look Like? discusses the issue of what should be the philosophy of governance in an age of unprecedented challenges. Chandler relies on ideas based on the philosophy of John Rawls, considered the greatest political philosopher of the twentieth century.
Rawls invited people to imagine that they are designing a society from start, but no one knows what he or she will be within it -rich or poor, man or woman, gay or straight. What would a person want that society to look like?
At the heart of Rawls’ philosophy is a simple and powerful idea that society should be fair. He put forward three principles for a fair society: first, the basic liberties principle, namely that each of us would choose to protect our most important personal and political liberties, including freedom of conscience, speech and association, as well as equal voting rights and opportunities to influence the political process.
Second, the fair opportunity principle, namely that all of us would want to live in a society where everyone has a fair chance to succeed in life, irrespective of their class, race, or gender. This isn’t just about preventing discrimination, but about giving everyone a truly equal chance to develop and employ their talents and abilities. We should organize our economy so as to maximize the life chances of the least well off.
Third, the ‘just savings principle’: we should recognize our obligation towards future generations by accepting that we have an overriding duty to maintain the material wealth and vital ecosystems on which society depends. Respect for this principle in our time, Chandler comments, must begin by taking immediate action to address the climate and ecological emergency and recast our economy so that it can operate within safe ecological limits.
Chandler writes: “Creating a legal framework to enforce these limits is a critical first step, and developing a more detailed plan for how we can curb emissions and protect fragile ecosystems is the most urgent policy imperative of our time.” Sustainability, he adds, must go hand in hand with the wider task of addressing inequality and achieving economic justice.
Our goal, he emphasizes, should be to build a society that is not only more equal, but more humane: one in which even the lowest-paid workers are treated with dignity and respect, and where each of us has a real opportunity to find work that can be a source of creativity, community and personal fulfilment. A universal basic income (UBI) would, he recommends, provide a vital foundation of security and independence for all.
Chandler has a programme for governance based on Rawls’ philosophy. Among his key ideas are the UBI, and also that we should “change our most basic political and economic institutions” to meet the needs of the times. He calls for a dramatic expansion of ‘workplace democracy’.
Chandler’s central thesis is that each society needs to articulate a clear philosophy and strategy of governance, grounded in Rawl’s three principles for a fair society. Which brings us to the philosophy of governance in Guyana.
During the struggle for independence, both Dr. Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham held Marxist philosophies of governance. As Premier during the pre-independence period of internal self-government, and following the suspension of the Constitution, Dr Jagan pursued a restrained socialist course – while remaining at heart a Marxist.
Later, when in opposition – and in the face of repeated rigged elections, the PPP declared itself a Marxist-Leninist party. By the time he regained power in 1992, the world had changed and Dr Jagan operated in a capitalist international environment while advocating a New Human Order. In his heart he remained a Marxist, but he bent to the prevailing dominant capitalist orthodoxy.
In his quest for power, Burnham first ditched his Marxist orientation, claimed to be an advocate of capitalism prior to, and during, his initial years in
government, then declared his party a Marxist-Leninist party, whereafter his government professed to pursue ‘scientific socialism’ in the second part of his reign. This was convenient for him, as he could hold on to power through the paramount, vanguard PNC, rigging elections wholesale. There was no consistent philosophy of governance here.
Desmond Hoyte liberalised the economy after Burnham and it would be fair to attribute to him a pragmatic philosophy of governance. So, among Jagan, Burnham and Hoyte we had Marxist, socialist, capitalist, and pragmatic philosophies of governance. Burnham and Hoyte’s rigging of elections cast a shadow on all of this.
Janet Jagan was at heart a Marxist but, during her short Presidency, and in a triumphalist western environment, she pursued a pragmatic approach. Bharrat Jagdeo, educated as a Marxist economist in Moscow, succeeded her and continued on what might be considered a pragmatic course. By the time he became President, he was, having been Minister of Finance, adept at dealing with the IMF and there was no room for him to implement his Marxist training. The world had changed under his feet.
The same could be said of his successor, Donald Ramotar a trained and unrepentant Marxist. His successor, David Granger, could be considered to fall within the Hoytean philosophy of pragmatic governance. Both Ramotar and Granger were educated, among other places, at the University of Guyana.
We may note, at this point, that among Guyanese thinkers and academics, Professor Clive Thomas, a world-class economist, has articulated in his writings the clearest set of ideas for achieving fairness for all Guyanese. His fundamental philosophy is that one should do everything one can to alleviate the plight of the poor and to give everyone an equal and fair chance to develop and prosper. He considers that the resources of the country should be used, first and foremost, for the well-being of its people. Whether his ideas may have lost visibility and traction because of his more recent political activism is something that we shall leave to others to comment upon.
And now we can turn to the contemporary philosophy of governance of the ruling party in Guyana. There are two leading players in this process: President Irfaan Ali and his Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo. We know very little of the actual courses they took – which subjects they studied – or of the mind-sets of these two individuals, and neither has so far articulated a philosophical statement of governance that would help us to locate their thinking. Nor, for that matter, has the Leader of the Opposition.
President Ali professes skills in planning and one can see this in the numerous infrastructural projects he is championing across the country – using the newly-found energy resources. One might term his governing philosophy to be one of infrastructural planning.
Vice-President Jagdeo, the leader of the PPP, is a skilful political strategist and, as a former Minister of Finance, may be said to have an eclectic economic philosophy of governance. He may be considered as viewing every issue through political and economic lens – which is natural for the leader of a political party who studied economics.
Both President Ali and Vice-President Jagdeo would probably say that they are implementing the Manifesto of the PPP/Civic at the last General Election. But is this enough as a governing philosophy? Guyana is a complex society with large swathes of poverty – still not alleviated by its new-found energy wealth.
Each main population group in Guyana has perspectives of its own that need to be addressed: indigenous peoples, who have numerous pressing needs and deserve special attention; Afro-Guyanese who are attentive to the needs of persons of African descent; Indo-Guyanese who are similarly motivated; and persons of mixed ancestry who may be considered as representing the future of Guyana.
The planning philosophy of President Ali, and the eclectic economic philosophy of Vice-President Jagdeo will clearly not be enough to address the challenges facing Guyana. Rawls’ three principles of governance are all under severe duress in Guyana: the basic liberties principle; the fair-opportunity principle; and the ‘just savings principle’. The basic liberties principle is under duress because of stresses on the rule of law, the inertia of the rights commissions, and the fact that the umbrella national human rights commission has never been established. Added to this is a consistent pattern of vicious attacks on civil society organizations. The fair-opportunity principle is under stress because of the depth of continuing poverty and inequality in the country; and the just-savings principle has been absent inasmuch as there is no comprehensive, pro-active policy for protecting the environment – not to mention the governance philosophy that has led the government and the EPA to appeal the decision of Justice Kissoon in the recent case involving the risk of oil spillages that might affect not only Guyana but the Caribbean at large.
Guyana would deserve it that President Ali, Vice-President Jagdeo, and Opposition Leader Norton should, in the near future, each make a thoughtful considered statement on their philosophy of governance. Guyana needs to know this, and to debate it. In this manner, Guyana might have an opportunity to rise to the challenge of Rawls’ three great principles of governance.
Chandler has a pertinent caution in the conclusion to his book: “We are living in one of those rare periods in which established norms and allegiances have been thrown into question, and when, as the philosopher Antonio Gramsci famously put it: ‘the old is dying and the new cannot yet be born’ “. Why not, President Ali, Vice President Jagdeo, and opposition Leader Norton?
