By Roysdale Forde S.C, M.P-The authoritarian governance practiced by the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) has serious economic consequences on development, innovation constraints and modernisation. In observing authoritarianism, one would notice certain key features: it has a high concentrate of centralised power; limited political pluralism, and restrictions on civil liberties, and media.
The governing style of authoritarian regimes derecognises democratic principles as demonstrated by its approach to severely limit political opposition and silence dissenting voices. Other features include: the disregard of legislative checks and balances, executive branch, attempting to consolidate more power to itself and wanton corruption.
Corruption breeds an environment of human rights violation, dependency on GDP, leads to wasteful spending, and inhibits economic innovations, thereby rendering the country lagging in terms of output and manufacturing capabilities and human under-development. sThe impunity accorded the corrupt ones in the government results in attitudes of irresponsibility and unaccountability reflecting the general decline of accepted rules and ethical behaviour.
The traits and practices that differentiate democratic governance from authoritarian rule are very wide-ranging. Democratic governance encompasses competitive multiparty elections, a separation of powers, the rule of law, and civil liberties.
On August 2, 2020, in the midst of a küresel pandemic, and other challenges, the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) party was declared the winner of general elections in Guyana. As that party settled in office worrying signs and red flags of authoritarian began to reappear.
One such sign is the suppression of dissent and opposition. As observed in other elected autocratic regimes, (I deliberately used the term elected autocratic regimes; elections provide no assurance that an elected government would be democratic) opposition groups and dissent are systematically suppressed. For Guyana, elected autocracy comprises of the use of the state apparatus to suppress political pluralism and open critique of the government.
There are a few independent media houses with very limited resources. Others are controlled by or aligned with the postures and positions of the government on all matters of state. The Guyana Chronicle, National Communication Network (NCN) are all controlled by the PPP/C government. Guyana Times, and many of the online media platforms are aligned to the incumbent regime. Recall the attempt by PPP/C government aligned forces to manipulate the elections of the Guyana Press Association (GPA), and their strenuous efforts to establish a parallel body to support.
The PPP/C authoritarian government employs a range of techniques for ensuring that opposition groups cannot mobilise public opinion against them, including cutting-off financial resources of critical media, (the withdrawal of government advertisements from Stabroek News [2007] and Kaieteur News [2010] are classic examples) funding groups that are beneficial to the government.
Citizens are also afraid to publicly criticise the government because the latter is known to be vindictive towards those, who openly express dissent. In Guyana, opposition politicians and activists have been assaulted, on numerous occasions. Also, shortly after an opposition politician criticized the government, she was arbitrarily removed as national airport CEO, without formal notice or due process. The employer found it convenient to have security personnel escort her off the property when she went to work to avoid potential embarrassment that could arise from a refusal to depart.
These events illustrate the dangers to civil liberties in a society that fears speaking out against the government because of the likelihood of political and social discrimination. They also highlight the specific types of methods used by the PPP/C state to cower citizens into compliance.
An unintended consequence of the climate of fear in Guyana is that organised labour unions in the public service have been weakened. Demands for better working conditions, for example, are not regarded in Guyana because the state is known to be repressive and discriminatory in response. Recall industrial actions taken by the Guyana Teachers Union (GTU), the decisions of the High Court on that issue and the government’s stance on that court ruling. At the end of it all, our teachers received very little form the hands of the government.
Many Guyanese would remember the split of the Guyana Trade Union Congress (GTUC) into two separate entities, leading to the formation of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG) in 1990. This division stemmed from ideological differences and disagreements over leadership and political alignment with the trade union movement. Thus, there are specific and unique variables associated with this repressive government that is aspiring to remain in power indefinitely.
The government’s attempts to undermine democratic institutions have largely followed a combination of sidestepping, reshaping and weakening said institutions. The Integrity Commission is totally ill-equipped to carry out its work as per the constitution. It is plagued by limited resources, political interference and influence, and a lack of enforcement mechanisms among other critical things.
Another example is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This agency struggles with limited resources, lack of autonomy and minimal enforcement capacity, hindering its ability to regulate and protect the environment effectively. These affect the effectiveness of the agency and compromise environmental governance. As well, the Ombudsman appears to be inactive. These things have affected transparency, on the part of the government and a high disregard for checks and balances.
The government has been adept at weaponising democratic institutions to reduce the ability of less pliant democratic institutions to act against government malfeasance. This has manifested in a variety of ways, such as the use of the National Assembly to shut down critical discussion on abuse of power among parliamentarians and government operatives, or the manipulation of the Parliamentary Office for Support Services to provide information to government side MPs.
There have also been efforts to decrease trust in democratic institutions; for example, the repeated criticism of ruling by the courts that do not go in the government’s favour. Perhaps, the saddest and most noticeable one is the inaction by the President Ali to substantively appoint a Chief Justice and Chancellor of the Judiciary. No proper or even decent reason has been offered by the President on this outstanding matter; he simply refuses to appoint those Justices.
The PPP/C government is now attempting to bribe the electorate with their own money rather than actually delivering on good governance. The People’s Progressive Party/Civic has controlled the government and public purse in the tiny, impoverished, yet resource-rich nation since 1992, except for a “lost decade” from 2012 to 2020. Cash grants and other reliefs have been handed to citizens in an election year with the indecent promise, at a political rally, at Babu Jaan, of more if the people elect the PPP/C for another term.
Guyana, under the authoritarian rule of the PPP/C is experiencing severe governance problems, massive state corruption, mismanagement, curtailment of civil liberty rights, disregard for the rule of law, and the stifling of opposition. Guyana’s democracy and associated freedoms have been severely weakened.
One of the consequences of dictatorships and authoritarian governance is that power becomes centralised in a dictatorship or autocracy. Here, we have mainly one party-PPP/C in power that makes all the decisions top-down. Policies are then directed at reducing the role and importance of other political parties, trade unions, and other minorities.
Guyana finds itself in a very dangerous place today and we must do all within our power to avoid further descend because the consequences would be detrimental to all. This responsibility falls not only to the electorate, judiciary, and private sector, but to every part of civil society to work through the institutional and cultural convolutions that underpin democratic governance.
So too is there a role to be played by the international community in supporting, encouraging, and occasionally chiding democratic development along its course.
I would only encourage all Guyanese to unite against this authoritarian rule to bring our beloved nation to brighter shores of democracy. It is only by doing this we can achieve sustainable development and prosperity for all.