Rule of law perceptions
Last week we published the regional findings of the World Justice Report on public perceptions relating to the rule of law conducted in July-August 2022. According to its website the World Justice Project relies on household and expert surveys to measure how the rule of law is experienced and perceived in practical, everyday situations by the general public. The themes in the poll covered authoritarianism, fundamental freedoms, corruption, bribery, victimization, support for victims of crime and security.
In Guyana’s case the report stated that face-toface interviews were undertaken with a nationally representative sample of 500 Guyanese households. Since this is not a homogeneous nation it would be interesting to know how the sample was constructed, although since an overwhelming majority of the population is domiciled along the coastal strip it is reasonable to suppose that most of the responses derived from there and were ethnically balanced. The interior is a more problematic area, and although one presumes recourse was had to citizens living in locations like Lethem or Moruka, perhaps, there will be some variety in experiences across the different nations of Guyana’s vast hinterland. However, given the small numbers involved that would probably not affect the outcome to any great degree.
The term ‘rule of law’ is bandied about much nowadays, not least by our politicians. Accusations about breaching it come most frequently from whoever is in opposition, directed at whoever is in office, particularly as it relates to corruption. But none of them should feel any sense of smugness. According to the report where the public is concerned sixty-nine per cent believe that most or all members of political parties are involved in corrupt practices. As is well known, the problem in this country is that this awareness of corrupt dealings does not affect voting habits very much; politicians are not punished for their shortcomings because ethnic political allegiance trumps ethics. As such the problem persists.
In a general sense the survey found that the public’s perception of corruption in the legislature, the executive branch, the judiciary and law enforcement had deteriorated in Guyana between 2018 and 2022. Perhaps a little surprisingly, the greatest deterioration occurred where judges, magistrates and public defence attorneys were concerned. Had it been law enforcement that would have surprised nobody. That said, everywhere in the region it was reported that respondents most frequently had to pay a bribe when interacting with police officers and car registration agency officers in the last 12 months, on average.
It might be added that no one needs to be told here that there have never been any serious efforts to tackle bribery and corruption in the police force, and citizens know this only too well.
The reason is not far to seek, and that is the refusal of the politicians to professionalise the GPF and insulate it from political contamination. The World Justice Project simply indirectly reaffirms what is already common knowledge, namely that bribery among Guyana’s finest continues apace.
What is far more disturbing is that in comparison with their counterparts in the region Guyanese respondents were the ones who most often felt it was acceptable for a public officer to be recruited on the basis of family ties and friendship networks (the figure was 36%). Clearly there is room for some public education measures about what constitutes cronyism and nepotism and why these are unacceptable, although it has to be conceded that in the current political climate and given citizens’ perceptions of our politicians, that might be a wasted effort.
Given our political context what the public thought about authoritarianism in the society would be of especial interest. As it was, the report said that more than half of all respondents in the Greater Antilles, The Bahamas and the Guianas were of the view that top government officials practised authoritarian behaviour, although interestingly it was Bahamians who most often felt that such officials were engaged in such behaviour.
Where Guyana specifically was concerned, it was here that respondents most often thought that senior government officials attacked or tried to discredit opposition parties (59%), attacked or tried to discredit the electoral system and other supervisory organs (59%), sought to influence the promotion and removal of judges (58%) and prosecuted and convicted members of opposition parties (58%). It was also felt that they censored information from abroad (57%), refused to comply with court rulings not in their favour (56%) and prosecuted and convicted journalists and leaders of civil society organisations (56%).
What this means is that the Guyanese public is not slumbering. They cannot miss, of course, the endless invective and derision visited on both our major parties by the other, and the fact that our electoral apparatus is under constant criticism by the opposition in particular. As for the judges, how can they have failed to notice that in defiance of his constitutional duty the President of this land has failed to adhere to the procedures for the appointment of a Chancellor and Chief Justice and despite undertakings still has not appointed the Judicial Service Commission? And the public, it seems, also knows the reason: top government officials want appointees who will favour them.
The incorrect view that such officials prosecuted and convicted journalists and leaders of civil society
organisations (56%) may have its origins in the barrage of opprobrium and insults heaped on critics, no matter how qualified or professional, as well as on members of the independent media, and most recently the Guyana Press Association. All it means is that Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s preference for contumely when dealing with those he regards as his opponents is not being accepted at face value by the majority of people of this nation. In addition, they have correctly noted the fact that members of both parties have been charged when their opponents get into government.
It seems that in Guyana, along with some other states in the region, there has been a decline in the belief that freedom of expression, political participation, election and religion are guaranteed as compared to 2018. There was an exception in the form of an increase in the number of those believing that the media can expose cases of corruption. Favourable views were expressed on the question of freedom of political participation, with 72% agreeing that people can attend political meetings. Beyond that opinions were less sanguine, with only 29% agreeing that local government officials were elected through a clean process.
Another deterioration was in the perception that people can vote freely without feeling harassed or pressured, and a rather puzzling one about religious minorities being able to observe their holy days.
There were as noted above, other themes dealing with the police and security, among others, but those arguably might have produced fewer surprises.
This survey was all about public perceptions and potentially therefore could provide the government if not the opposition with a window into what the inhabitants of this country really think about matters relating to the rule of law. On the basis of this report the public seems to be perceiving a greater authoritarianism now as compared to four years ago. The problem is that our politicians don’t listen to the public because they really don’t think they need to. However, even if they feel confident disregarding this bit of feedback, it will be noted in the outside world and measured against the propaganda which issues in such abundance from government sources. Ignoring reality completely is never a recommended strategy if an administration wants to be taken seriously in the international arena.