Liberal democracy

Last week in response to a view expressed by Mr Ralph Ramkarran in his Sunday column that the PPP had abandoned Marxism-Leninism in favour of a more social democratic stance, former President Donald Ramotar said he had to agree with the columnist’s assessment. We quoted him as adding that the current ideological orientation of the party was “not extremely clear.” Mr Ramotar was the party General Secretary from 1997 to 2013, and described how during that period Marxist methods were used for analysing political and social situations, although the policies which were pursued had definitely more of a social democratic cast. In relation to the party’s earlier Marxist analytical approach, he said, “I don’t think that is happening at the moment.”

We also quoted him as commenting, “You must admit that the government has a strong social policy. It strongly promotes education, is very strong on health care although I don’t think we always get value for money. The intention is there. Things like old-age pension and other social support programmes are promoted, but fundamentally the economy is bourgeois.” And it is the economy, of course, which most commentators are referring to when they say that the PPP is no longer Marxist-Leninist, the survival of its original constitution notwithstanding. The former General Secretary went on to point to the government’s focus on the private sector, and the “strong element of private sector support.”

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs Clement Rohee was in agreement with Mr Ramotar, saying “I don’t think the party is Marxist-Leninist.” In addition he too conceded that he had not been able to determine an ideology to associate with the party. “The philosophy of the party remains people-centred and national democratic,” he said; “that’s how I would put it.” He went on to observe that social sector policy is always a good gauge of a government’s ideology.

While it is true that the government has declared its support for the private sector over many years, it has tolerated a somewhat distorted version of the capitalist society, making it difficult for investors here, as the US Ambassador pointed out recently, and often operating to favour associates as against those who might win in a situation of true competition. As for its social programmes and “people-centred” government, these are hardly incompatible with a Marxist-Leninist framework.

What none of the old hands is saying specifically – and that includes Mr Ramkarran who had been a long-standing member of the party at the time of his departure – is that they see this as an open society reflecting liberal values. It is conceivably (although not necessarily) implied in Mr Rohee’s reference to a “national democratic” ideology, although he does not flesh out exactly what he means by this, and in Messrs Ramotar and Ramkarran’s reference to social democracy, although here again it is uncertain what exactly they intend and whether it is the same for both of them. The latter goes on to contend that the ‘Principles and Bases of the Political, Economic and Social System’ in the Constitution should be the PPP’s ideology, although it should be observed that this section is something of a mish-mash of content principles and some of the formal ones which are characteristic of the constitutions of most liberal democracies.

Communist societies are few and far between in the world, Cuba being a rare case of a hold-out. Neither China nor Russia could be described as communist any longer, since they both practise capitalism, although in the latter’s case it takes a distinctly ‘crony’ variety, and in the former’s there is a relationship with the state in the case of large enterprises especially, which is not transparent. The Communist Party will also interfere in business operations if it wants to achieve a particular end, as is happening now because President Xi Jinping is seeking to close the wealth gap in the society.

What neither China nor Russia have relinquished is an autocratic mode of government, although Russia after the fall of communism espoused democracy for a time, flawed though it might have been. However, President Vladimir Putin is in the process of moving his country back to reflect a more familiar authoritarian model. If the PPP has retained anything from its MarxistLeninist past it is its party structure and penchant for control in the society, although our social circumstances do not provide fertile ground for anything all encompassing.

Liberal democracies across the globe vary in character, and some of them are social democracies. However, they do have certain things in common, such as a belief in representative democracy, a recognition of civil and human rights, freedom of speech, the press and religion, an independent judiciary, a market economy and the need for the rule of law, among other things.

Freedom House would undoubtedly claim that it subscribes to all of the above, although when it comes down to the matter of practice, their performance is frequently less than spectacular. They do not like autonomous institutions, for example, and the merit principle is not what inspires many of their appointments. As a consequence, agencies which should hold their decision-making to account, such as the EPA, have suffered, and along with it the country as a whole. To cite another example, they do not want to relinquish their dominance over local government authorities or discuss fundamental constitutional reform except of the more technical kind relating to elections.

This is mostly connected to their desire for control, as mentioned above, but at the present time nothing is more perverse, anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of a liberal society than their refusal to deal with the coalition unless it publicly recognises the PPP/C as the legitimate government. Nobody denies that the opposition position on the government is sheer nonsense, but President Ali is not a schoolteacher in a classroom lecturing to recalcitrant pupils, and if the Constitution requires him to meet the Leader of the Opposition to make certain appointments such as those in the judiciary, he is bound to meet him.

The President has been insistent about not meeting him unless he makes this acknowledgement, and in the process has landed himself in a muddle. He was reported by DPI as saying that a declaration about legitimacy was not a condition, but a fact the Opposition Leader must accept. The fact is that the head of state leads a legitimate government, but the insistence on the acknowledgement of that fact is a condition which he has arbitrarily imposed.

The refusal to talk to the coalition is not representative government in the true sense, and in this case it has had some very serious consequences for the population. This is apart from the failure to appoint a permanent Chancellor and Chief Justice, which potentially undermines the independence of the judiciary, and by extension, therefore, the rule of law. It is particularly dangerous because we are in a pandemic, and the cooperation of the opposition was essential for the purpose of persuading people to get vaccinated. Now the snake of politics seems to be entering into the vaccination issue, something which could have been avoided if the government had worked with the opposition from the beginning.

One might have hoped that the PPP/C, after moving away from its Marxist-Leninist ideology would have learnt from its 23 years in office, and be proceeding more deliberately towards a society reflecting the character of a liberal democracy with its associated values. The social policy referred to by Messrs Ramotar and Rohee is important, but that is a content issue and does not in and of itself say anything about the formal provisions which go to make up the framework of the state.

That said, it is undeniable that if the ideology of the PPP is uncertain, that of APNU simply does not exist. One might have thought in their case they would have learnt something from their 24 illegal years in office, but far more than the PPP, they seem to have forgotten everything. They have abandoned representative democracy, so are hardly in a position to lecture others on the values which go to make up a liberal society. It is unlikely that the present leadership is in any position to return to the drawing board and give the party a raison d’être other than a raw thirst for power.

If our political parties are not committing themselves in a direct way to an open society reflecting liberal values, some of our civil society groups and commentators are in a tacit way doing so, given the nature of their concerns. A true liberal democracy is the only framework in which it makes sense to address our profound problems, such as our ethnic-political divide. We know from experience that autocracy and a brand of elected authoritarianism really can’t cut it.