Changing our political culture

In light of the storm unleashed over President Granger’s unilateral appointment of former Justice James Patterson as Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) Chairman, it might appear matters of culture may be farthest from the mind of the average citizen right now. But that would be a mistaken view, and in fact, “culture” in general and political culture in particular, lie at the heart of the storm – the eye of the hurricane, so to speak.
We all know “culture” is our “way of life”, and no matter how divided we may believe our country to be, there is a “Guyanese culture” and as part of this, a Guyanese political culture. That this may be one that plural, fractious and conflictual is beside the point: it would do us good for us to recognise that reality and deal with it face front. Refusal to do so just ensures perpetual political turmoil.
Political culture consists of the attitudes, beliefs, values and orientations about politics in a given population at any given time. In Guyana, our political “attitudes, beliefs, values and orientations” are dominated by ethnicity and our elections have been called with much truth, “ethnic censuses”. We have to just look at the blogs on the stories concerned with the GECOM chair issue to confirm that “race” still rules the political roost, contrary to those who have proclaimed the dawning of a “post-racial” Guyana.
The structures of a political system, as in any social system, refer to the regularised activities, which make up that system. These regularised behaviours are passed down during our socialisation, especially by our families when we are very young. Consequently, while we may not be making explicit political choices as children, the seeds of such behaviour are already set; ready to sprout. Structures are comprised of roles which are guided by norms; the totality of norms or rules which govern a particular structure would be referred to as an “institution” – for instance the institution of the family that is the earliest socialising vehicle as mentioned.
To a large instance, if we want to change our political culture, we have to begin with the family. However, most overt interventions occur in the school/educational system, which is generally run by the State or which sets the curriculum. There has been a concerted call by several elements of civil society for a “civics” component that teaches widen civic virtues to be added in our educational system starting from the nursery level. But while this has fallen on deaf years up to the present, it is not too late to begin.
At the overt “political” level, Parliament is a structure – set of patterned activities of its members, such as the Speaker, Clerk, etc, fulfilling roles defined by rules. Parliament is then, simultaneously an institution – the total set of rules that delimit its permissible activities. “Structure” is a more inclusive term than “institution”, since rules rarely describe the full range of incumbents’ activities. Political culture and political structures are two sides of the same coin and they interact continuously to shape, influence and direct each other. But even though the rules of the institution were designed to guide its members into a more nationalist responsible direction, of recent there has been a sad fall from such graces.
Political culture, structures and institutions are typically shaped by a nation’s history and evolve out of the interaction, disagreements and conflicts among social forces, as they attempt to resolve their common problems. In Guyana however, the political culture, structures and institutions were imposed by a colonial power whose concerns were not to solve the contradictions of the society but to rule and extract resources most efficiently for its benefit.
While there have been several institutionalised attempts to intervene and change our political culture, structures and institutions it is clear that what our country needs now is a “root and branch” approach. Maybe this latest crisis will convince the fence sitters to become involved.