President Irfaan Ali, like Leader of the Opposition, Joseph Harmon, has the fact that he is holding his current position as a result of a highly transparent process with which significant parts of his party’s equipment were uncomfortable. The PPP’s attachment to that Marxist / Leninist nonsense called democratic centralism, which practically means central control and a little democracy, gives that party leader an opportunity to do just as he pleases. Mr Harmon has been the beneficiary of a process that is so arcane that it defies description. In 2011, the PNC adopted an American-style primary process to choose its leadership and my enthusiasm that this portrayed a new day and should be encouraged led me to note, ‘Multiple electoral defeat, internal confessions and external criticism have transformed National the People of Congress Reform (PNCR) to the most democratic political party in Guyana ‘(KN: 10/02/2011). But from the outset, there was a reversal of the old dictatorial oligarchic way: Mr David Granger’s election to the leadership post was ruined by complaints of election fraud and was the first and last primary school run by the PNC !
Political parties are archetypical oligarchies in which small elite groups keep themselves in office. The existence of strong independent federal party structures, opposition within the party and main-type arrangements to select the best and national party representatives are ways to mitigate the power of the oligarchies. But these are usually systematically weakened by party leaders accusing internal oppositions of factionalism, dismissal, being agents of the other side and so on. Also, given the ethnic nature of societies like Guyana, it’s amazing how easily oligarchies are allowed to accumulate more power for themselves! The leaders of the two major ethnic parties came together and made it impossible for a Member of Parliament to cross the floor and after the recent no-confidence motion for major approval, and highlight the existence of such rules in India and Colombia, the PNC promised to make it impossible for even MPs to vote against their side of the House. It would be a relatively safe bet that, as memory fades, the PPP will join him in his research!
Add to these in many important respects, the activities of political parties and politicians are legally regarded as private activities outside the reach of the law. For example, for a number of reasons, attempts to make electoral promises justifiable have not been successful. ‘As has been made clear, it would be impossible to hold politicians legally accountable for their electoral promises, due to the fact that Dicey’s first separation of powers and rule of law prohibits it. … The separation of powers has been part of governmental and legal systems for hundreds of years because it is a solution to countering abuse of power by those who have it. If society is to maintain order, it must be adhered to in all circumstances. … It would undoubtedly be detrimental for society to have an unelected and unrepresentative judicial system that limits the power of a democratically elected representative government. … Ultimately, the answers against politicians who break promises seem to be the common ones we all know – against, or campaign against ‘(http : //www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1160/should- politicians-be-legally-liable-for-their-election-promises).
Given the ideological status quo and Guyana’s divisive ethnic context, it seems to me that improvements in democratic participation generally rest in strengthening the internal democratic procedures that political parties must adhere to. The German Democratic Republic regulations were originally enacted after the war to convince the world that it had surrendered fascism in favor of liberal democracy and are considered among the most progressive. I’ve made examples of the snippets below.
The German constitution recognizes that political parties are important in democratic society and therefore need to ‘set out their goals in political programs’. Contrary to the view taken by the PNC above, article 21 states’ The deputies are representatives of the People as a whole. They are subject only to their conscience and are not bound by instructions (https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Germany_1919.pdf?lang=en). And according to the German Political Parties Act 1967 (amended 2009) (the Act) ‘Nomination of candidates for elections to parliaments must be by secret ballot. The nomination procedure will be regulated by the electoral laws and by the statutes of the political parties. ‘Of course, as elsewhere, the German parties recommend how their representatives should vote.
I have noted above that a strong federal / regional organization militates against oligarchic control and the Act pays much attention to participation and membership rights. For example, section 7 states that political parties will be organized at regional and / or local branches. The size and level of regional / local branches must be specified in the party statutes. Such territorial subdivisions must be sufficiently large to allow individual members to participate, to a sufficient degree, in the party’s policy and decision-making processes. ‘It goes on to state that member and representative services are the supreme body of the respective regional / local branches. ‘Other functional officers may be members … but in this case the number of those entitled to vote must not exceed one-fifth of the total assembly number as provided under the statutes. Furthermore, in contrast to the secrecy that dog party funding is in Guyana, the Act requires, at national and regional levels, ‘The party convention shall, at least every two years, receive a progress report from the Executive Committee and will pass a resolution on it. Before the report is submitted, its financial standing will be reviewed by auditors elected by the party convention. ‘
The party may refuse individual membership, but only under section 10 of the Act if he / she violates the party’s principles or rules that deliberately cause serious damage to the party. However, the arbitration tribunal as defined in the rules on arbitration procedures will make the decisions on disqualification from the party. The right of appeal to a higher arbitral tribunal is guaranteed. The reasons for tribunal decisions are set out in writing. ‘
Most importantly, disputes, even as to whether party policies are being implemented or not, are criticized by independent arbitral tribunals chosen equally by the competing sides. According to section 14 of the Act, tribunals are set up at least at party level itself and from the top-level regional branches to settle, and decide disputes between the party or regional / local branch, on the one hand, and members on the other hand, as well as disputes about the interpretation and application of the statutes. … Members of the arbitral tribunals shall be elected for a maximum of four years. They must not be members of the party’s Executive Committee or any of its regional / local branches; or be employed by the party or any of its branches; nor receive regular income from them. They will be independent and not bound by instructions. … The statutes may allow the parties to the dispute, either generally or on a case-by-case basis, to nominate equal numbers of assessors to the arbitral tribunals. The functions of such arbitral tribunals shall be governed by rules on arbitration procedures designed to guarantee litigants a legal hearing, a fair case and the possibility of dismissal of any member of the arbitral tribunal for partiality until the tribunal arbitration has reached a decision. ‘
Of course, as I have argued in relation to the stability of the German economy, having proper rules and competent institutions in place is not sufficient: ‘the magic ingredient – the real power that protects the rules’ is the existence of a critical mass of citizens who understand that the rules must be upheld and are prepared to use whatever authority they have to ensure they are kept ‘(Future Notes: SN: 08/05/2019). There must be rules but in establishing them one must be aware that Guyana is too ethnically divided to have that critical mass of committed citizens, and therefore the result is likely to be sub-optimal.