Building blocks

Readers would recall that after having presented a number of building blocks related to the “criminalized state” hypothesis I pointed out that there was still one necessary building block to be considered. That is, what sort of state preceded the present state, I am seeking to describe? This has become necessary, because it is commonly accepted by all schools of thought in the social sciences that in social life and human activity, events do not occur without some linkage to the circumstances that immediately preceded them. This linkage may of course be either weak, strong, or somewhere in between. In every instance however, there must be a linkage. To draw an analogy, the adult of today was a young adult earlier, and before that an adolescent and before that a child, and so on. What the person is at each stage therefore, is linked backwards in some way with the stage immediately preceding the one being considered. If this simple self-evident proposition holds true, then the criminalisation of the state, which has only started in recent times must have some sort of linkage with the state form that immediately preceded it. Simply put my claim is that the immediately preceding form of state was an “authoritarian” one as I had categorised it in my earlier work. It should be noted that although some linkage to that state form exists, it is for me to demonstrate at some point whether that linkage is weak, strong or somewhere in between. Logically also, there is the consideration that there may not be agreement with my categorisation of the preceding form of state as “authoritarian”. Therefore, when I offer a description of the “authoritarian state” as I am now doing, this will not substitute for having to establish both that this is a fair categorisation of what existed before, and the strength of the linkage of the present to it.

Last week’s discussion tried to locate the “authoritarian state” in a concrete historical context, where a specific conjuncture of internal circumstances existed (backward capitalist environment) and where also a particular stage of development of the international system prevailed (structural crisis). The colonial origin of the society was also given as an important determinant of the pattern of poverty and underdevelopment that the country faced and the social/racial/cultural dynamics of the society. This location of the state fixed its essential character. Despite this however, operationally, the methods of rule and forms of governance of those who administered the state were of the utmost importance in day-to-day life and in shaping the fortunes of the country.

Stress therefore has to be laid on the importance of governance and the methods of rule by rulers in the “authoritarian state”. This approach is intended to dispel any idea that states can or do operate mechanically. Human intervention shapes and directs the operations of all states, even though each state has its essential form. Thus persons generally refer to the “Western democratic states of Europe and North America”, capturing in the process some essential form that makes these states similar. At the same time, however, everyone recognises that these states are also different, if only because those who administer their various arms and the ruling political groups in control are not the same in each country.

Lessons From The Past

What major features of the “authoritarian state” help to explain important characteristics and traits of the “criminalised state”? To begin with the forms of governance and the methods of rule of the authoritarian state in Guyana reflected pre-eminently the struggle for political power among political parties organised in the main around race. As a rule, race based political organisations pre-determined election results, unless these could be rigged. This basic reality led the minority African-based PNC to resort to the latter option in order to pre-empt their losing a racial vote at national elections. Immediately therefore, one feature of the authoritarian state that we need to bring forward to today’s situation is that political choice is ultimately centred on seeking and/or protecting an existing racial advantage.

Second, because PNC-rule was not majority-based, executive control of all arms of the state and a commandist top-down style of control and orders, substituted for the incentives and regulatory framework, which guided more democratically-based political systems. This was ultimately sanctioned with the establishment of the 1980 Constitution, which enshrined an unprecedented “unity of powers” in the Presidency and executive arm of the state. Whatever formal “separation of powers” slipped through the cracks of the 1980 Constitution was undermined by executive licence. Again, as we shall see, these features play a prominent role in the present state and their origins lie in the state that preceded it.

Third, the global ideological struggles of the time helped shape the ideological lens through which the ideas of the ruling PNC were promulgated locally. Given however, the practice of race based political organisations and competition, in its presentations the PNC Government never publicly acknowledged this reality. Their stance was epitomised in Cooperative Socialism, which was the most important frame of reference for the legitimisation of the ruling party’s practice. Today, neo-liberalism is the triumphant global ideological system and this frame of reference is the one through which the PPP ruling group’s ideas are framed.

Fourth, the socialist project of controlling the “commanding heights” of the economy and protecting “national sovereignty” encouraged the rapid growth of the state property sector, to the point where as we all know the PNC government boasted of owning and/or controlling 80 percent of the national economy. Thus expanding the ruling party’s capacity to coerce and placing in its control the bulk of society’s resources. With the triumph of neo-liberalism, the state property sector has been rolled back. Today the bulk of the resources up-for-grabs is aid and other official transfers to the state. This has altered the nature of the struggle in Guyana over sharing resources.

Next week we shall continue this examination.

Dr Clive Thomas can be contacted by e-mail at cythomas@guyana.net.gy