Democracy in a plural society
Kaieteur News
July 18, 2004
Guyanese political culture and structures, with their under girding philosophy and institutions, are an inheritance from the British.
They had evolved to address the needs of a society, which was more or less ethnically homogenous – totally unlike ours. The premises of the system reflected the biases of Liberalism, where the supposedly rational individual engages in a variety of roles and belongs to a multitude of organisations and groups whose several interests are cross cutting.
The individual, in his political role as a voter, therefore makes a “rational” choice based on the position a given party takes on the issues before the electorate. Even if all voters do not conform to this ideal there are enough who do, to constitute a pool of “swing” votes for which all parties compete. This situation creates a centripetal moderating effect and the parties line up on a continuum on the issues.
Since these swing voters may always change their minds, the majority is always careful to be respectful to the minority. The essential principle is “audiatur et altera pars” – the other side must also be heard.
Plural-Society Politics
The party system in a divided society operates on totally different basis. Here the individual is a member of groups, which instead of diffusing the cleavages, act to reinforce them.
For example, Indians in Guyana will generally attend different places of worship, work in different occupations, have different modes of recreation etc. than Africans. The “broker institutions” that each group participates in, and which represents him in the larger society, are also ethnically based trade unions, political parties etc.
Affiliation is thus not based on the party’s position on a variety of issues but generally on one issue: which group’s interest does the particular party represent? Party membership is generally ascriptive, where individuals perceive their fate in ethnic, rather than individual or class terms. Party competition, in general, reflects ethnic competition.
Working against parties that attempt to be “multi-ethnic” is the existence of “flank” parties or groups. These are found within every ethnic group and take positions which can be considered extreme in favour of their given group. The major “multi-ethnic” parties are forced to respond to their demands so as not to lose support.
Since the demands of these flank parties are invariably particularistic and in opposition to the “‘out” group, the major parties move away from the center as they respond. In Guyana, for instance, Indian supporters forced the P.P.P. during its term of office, to take such “Indian” positions as control of church run schools etc. Between 1964 and 1972, ASCRIA played a similar role with the P.N.C.
“Multi-ethnic” parties have attempted to bridge the ethnic chasm through various mechanisms. In Guyana, the P.P.P. and P.N.C. adopted “socialism,” with its focus on working class unity, transcending race, which had no “socialist content.”
The Working Peoples Alliance, in addition to its socialist ethos (in the early days), introduced a leadership structure where there is no maximum leader but a dual Indian-African leadership. Other parties, and the ones mentioned before, emphasise a non-racial orientation and elect “multi-racial” executives.
Failure
In addition to flank pressures, the failure of “multi-ethnic” parties has been due to the unwillingness of most leaders to accept strong and authentic ethnic leaders from other groups within their parties. The parties invariably end up being dominated by one or the other ethnic group or is perceived by the electorate as such.
Divided societies, after severe setbacks due to ethnic hostilities, are more amenable to accommodative measures. In Guyana, political parties with the strength to include effective “multi-ethnic” leadership, and programs to address ethnic fears could probably convert the two older parties into “flank” parties.
In the absence of the true “multi-ethnic parties”, the party system is ethnically based and the politics is of a different kind from that of homogenous societies. Leaders become very important since the leader has such deep symbolic meaning for the followers.
Demographics are also important. In a country such as Guyana with Indians forming over 50 percent of the population, if in free and fair election Indians vote as a bloc, there is no incentive for them to consider the interests of Africans.
The minority, by their numbers alone, after all, could never become the majority. A minority group in such a situation faces the possibility of permanent exclusion from Governmental power. Its future existence depends on the benevolence of the majority - the latter condition, which flank groups from the majority will ensure, is always precarious. The politics of “in and out” becomes the politics of “over and under”; submission and domination. Majoritarian politics, while it may be suitable for homogenous societies, pose grave dangers for divided societies.
Democracy
Before the P.N.C. captured the power in 1964 and maintained it afterwards by electoral rigging, Arthur Lewis in considering the uniracial, but “multiethnic” societies of West Africa made some comments which are quite apropos to Guyana.
“The word ‘democracy’ has two meanings”. Its primary meaning is that all who are affected by a decision should have the chance to participate in making that decision, either directly or through chosen representatives. Its secondary meaning is that the will of the majority shall prevail. (In the latter) Politics is what the mathematicians call a zero sum game.
‘Translated from a class to plural society, this view of politics is not just irrelevant: it is totally immoral, inconsistent with the primary meaning of democracy, and destructive of any prospect of building a nation in which different people might live together in harmony. Are we, on counting heads, to conclude that... The Indians of British Guyana may liquidate the Negroes?”
In making a distinction between, the procedural and substantive aspects of democracy, Lewis however, highlights the dilemma, which free and fair elections pose for a minority group in a divided society.
Free and fair elections under the present arrangements, to many African Guyanese, imply a much different scenario than to the Indian Guyanese. For many in the former group, in the words of Arthur Lewis, it connotes “liquidation.” It is for this reason that the P.N.C. did not receive much opposition from African Guyanese when they initially rigged elections.
The P.N.C. was seen as protecting African interests and if they had to use illegal means to accomplish it, at the worse while unfortunate, it was necessary.
African Security Dilemma
Even after the façade of the P.N.C. as the protector of “African” interests was destroyed in the late 1970’s, the overriding security concerns of this community remain. At present, even with the undeniable hardship faced by African Guyanese, while they agree that the P.N.C. must be removed they are rationally concerned with “what” will replace it. They certainly do not regard the P.P.P. as their protector. The W.P.A., with the legitimacy conferred by Walter Rodney and its continued strong African Guyanese representation in the leadership, might play this role as might other multiethnic parties with strong, legitimate representatives of the African Guyanese community”.
Arthur Lewis however, to his credit, did not only criticise present arrangements but suggested possible avenues out of the ethnic dilemma.
“The democratic problem in a plural society is to create political institutions which give all the various groups the opportunity to participate in decision making… Each group wants to be represented by its own party and no single party is accepted every where… the solution is not the single party but Coalition and Federalism.”
(The above is extracted from the writer’s “For a New Political Culture”, published in 1990.)