‘Suriname/Guyana: good and bad governance’

Oct 08, 2024 Letters

---

 

Dear Editor,

In ‘Suriname graduated: Guyana failed’ (VV 15/09/2024. KN 16/09/2024) I reported that according to V-Democracy, the world’s most comprehensive democracy index, while Suriname is proceeding towards being a fully-fledged liberal democracy, Guyana is galloping towards becoming an autocracy. Governance in Guyana lacks most of the important values of a liberal democratic society, e.g. checks and balances on the executive, adherence to the rule of law, the separation of powers, focus on the common good instead of parochial ethnic appeals and coercion, the primacy of local democracy, etc. Indeed, some of its adherents claim that by directly going to opposition ethnic localities and undermining the local governments for electoral gain, the PPP is developing some new kind of democracy!

Recently, a report that epitomises Guyana’s decades-long descent has come to the fore, which in the present context deserves comment. ‘The Chief Executive Officer of Suriname’s state-owned oil company, Staatsolie, has been boasting that his country has clinched a far superior production sharing agreement with TotalEnergies compared to Guyana’s with ExxonMobil and its co-venturers. … He said while Guyana has 2 percent royalty and 50 percent profit split and no taxes, Suriname’s agreement provides for 6.25 percent royalty, profit split based on “the higher the oil price the better” for Suriname, but the lower the oil price the contractor “gets protected.” Additionally, he said Suriname has a stable tax rate of 36 percent.’ (DW 03/10/2024).

To those who argue that it is not the system but the people, Suriname does not have more intelligent or moral people than Guyana. As I noted in the article referred to above, what Suriname does have is a more accountable and inclusive governance model. Guyana, with all its natural resources, has been falling and failing to provide the good life for its people for some considerable time. No amount of exclusive, divisive and suboptimal spending can conceal the fact that without relatively strong governance, Guyana cannot adequately confront a strong foreign investor. Indeed, in our political context an individual party that threatens such an investor opens itself to being perpetually in opposition!

Unlike Suriname, the existing political majoritarian ethnic context has locked Guyana’s population in ‘the politics of fear’ – a state in which governmental competence or bad behaviour is not adequately punished. ‘The core idea of the Politics of Fear is that as long as supporters need the leader to maintain power … this ruler can deviate from the preferred policy of his following in other matters and still keep their support. … In particular, it shows that a ruler that is kleptocratic, inefficient and costly to all groups in society may still have a basis of support that fears a change in the status quo. This is especially true if civil society is divided on ascriptive grounds. This basis of support may even be willing to fight to return to the previous status should their ruler be deposed. ….  Consistent with the model, these tensions are exacerbated by a high degree of specific income easy to expropriate such as oil revenues’ (https://gerardpadro.com/published-papers/PoF-RES.pdf).

Because majoritarianism in ethnically divided countries such as Guayana exacerbates the politics of fear, ‘[i]f any generalisation about political institutional design is sustainable, it is that majoritarian systems are ill-advised for countries with deep ethnic, regional, religious and other emotional and polarizing divisions’ (The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance).

Last week I dealt with the presentation made by Mr. Vincent Alexander at the Forbes Burnham Foundation’s 2024 Elvin McDavid Memorial Symposium on the theme ‘How can an Electoral System for Guyana engineer a system of Governance that is responsive to the Plurality of the Guyanese Society?’ Today I will deal with the contribution made by, Ms. Shanieka Haynes at the same event on behalf of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR).

To recap, Mr. Alexander told his audience that in Guyana ‘no single group should be able to dominate, and that conflation and consensus should prevail’. The principle of ‘subsidiarity’ should limit the scope of central government. The determination of who is president should be a function of a process in the legislature that the allows for the appointment of a cabinet based on proportionality and a prime minister based on the consensus and that the powers of the executive and the legislature should be significantly reduced.  I concluded that, though vague, Alaxander’s approach is within the range of what Guyanese society requires if its decline towards autocracy and suboptimal management is to be reversed.

So let us see how the PNCR, by way of Ms. Shanieka Haynes, plans to remove or significantly reduce the politics of fear.  She began quite rhapsodically. ‘Today, we gather not just as members of the PNCR, or members of the Forbes Burnham Foundation, but as guardians of a vibrant nation that embodies a mosaic of cultures, customs, beliefs, languages, and traditions our Guyana, a truly plural society.’  Ms. Haynes must have been using the concepts very loosely, for Guyana is not ‘a nation’, ‘a people’ or an ordinary plural society. It is a bicommunal society with a lengthy history of ethnic struggle and this is precisely the reason why after some fifty years of independence the population is still being bombarded by aspirational but wholly utopian notions like ‘One Guyana’.

Nevertheless, Ms. Haynes broadly recognised that this ethnic diversity ‘has brought us challenges, particularly in matters of governance and public administration’ and that ‘as a plural society, we must confront the reality that our electoral system influences how well our governance reflects this diversity. The mechanisms of our democracy must serve all segments of our population equitably. … It should be understood [that] every grouping of the society deserves representation …. to protect their fundamental rights and interests.’ According to her, the current electoral system is flawed and is ‘perceived as favouring one group over another. Dominance by a single party leads to the alienation of minority voices, creating an environment where many feel their interests are not adequately represented. This disconnects fosters disenfranchisement, tension, and ultimately, political instability.’

The obvious question for the PNC is what is to be done? There were the normal political platitudes about the need for more civic education, etc., and Ms. Haynes appeared to forget that it was the PNCR that first broke the tradition of the deputy speakership of the national assembly going to the opposition or that the Local Government Commission, with its current structure and reach, was a creature of the PNCR.

More substantially but far to narrow, Ms. Haynes recommended that ‘[w]hile a proportional representation system is used for the general and regional elections, we must consider a shift towards a complete proportional representation system in our local government elections.  She also advocated multi-member electoral districts and the strengthening of local governance structures. ‘Inclusive governance means regularly engaging all stakeholders and that governmental appointments should reflect the ethnic diversity of Guyanese society.’

Thus, if in the effort to find a solution to Guyana’s persistent democratic decline Mr. Alexander’s recommendation was somewhat vague, Ms. Haynes’ contribution was uninspiring.

Sincerely,

Dr. Henry Jeffrey

---

• Guyana, Henry Jeffrey, Letters, Suriname

---