By Donald Ramotar
Political parties are mushrooming in Guyana these days. We have far more political parties than any other country in the Caribbean, and one of the highest numbers of such parties in the Commonwealth. The last count showed that Guyana has some 20 political parties.
Why is it that so many parties are emerging on our political scene? No doubt, some would interpret this as a testimony of our “democratic” society. Some outsiders, unfamiliar with our political history and today’s realities, would think that democracy is flourishing in Guyana.
That would have been true during the period 1992 to May 2015. However, we have since seen a great decline in democratic practices. Accountability has almost totally disappeared, and the regime has shown scant regard for our Constitution and the rule of law. Moreover, racial and political discrimination are rampant in our country.
I am sure that even the most ardent supporter of the APNU+AFC regime would have to admit that, using the yardstick of abiding by the Constitution and respecting the rule of law, Guyana is the most undemocratic regime in the region.
As this article is being prepared, we see all the signs that the regime is preparing to rig the upcoming elections, scheduled for March 2020, and perpetuate itself in power. This is more a case of history repeating itself.
Yet, the growth of political parties in our society is natural, and had we begun to have free and fair elections much earlier, this spurt in the amount of parties may have happened long before now.
Even though we see the proliferation of parties, this is not the limit. More parties may well emerge before the 2020 elections, and possibly even after. The reason for this growth is, no doubt, the electoral system that we have. Proportional Representation (PR) encourages the rise of many political parties. This system is alien to almost all of the Commonwealth countries. Almost all these countries have the Constituency system, popularly known as the “First Past the Post” system. This is the system that obtains in the United Kingdom. It was adopted by almost all the countries of the Commonwealth and many others outside of the Commonwealth.
The “First Past the Post” system creates conditions for strong political parties to contest specific areas, where the people’s representative would be well known. It is widely recognised as a more representative system, demands more accountability, and delivers better representation to the masses, the electors.
This was the system that we had up to 1961. It was replaced in 1964 by Proportional Representation (PR). The record would show that the quantity of parties was much less before the PR electoral system was introduced.
In 1953, three (3) parties contested the elections; they were: the People’s Progressive Party, National Democratic Party (NDP) and the People’s National Party (PNP). Independent candidates also participated for various constituencies. In fact, 86 independent candidates took part.
In 1957, five political parties: PPP (J), PPP (B), NLF, UDP, GNP, and six independent candidates contested.
In 1961, three parties contested: PPP, PNC, and UF; no independent candidate took part in those elections. This was the last elections wherein the “First Past the Post” method was used.
In 1964, the first elections held under the system of Proportional Representation (PR) seven parties contesting. They were: PPP, PNC, UF, Justice Party, Guyana United Muslim Party; Peace, Equality and Prosperity Party (PEPP), and National Labour Front.
From these first elections under PR, we see a growth in the quantity of parties emerging. Some were organised on religious grounds: GUMP and JP, and other smaller interests.
As is well known, the PR system was not imposed on us because the British thought that it was a better system. Indeed, this system first arose in the United Kingdom, but was discarded as unsuitable. Up to today, the British still have the Constituency system, so do the overwhelming amount of Commonwealth countries.
Many politicians have a negative view of it. Harold Wilson, a former Prime Minister of UK, described it as a “fiddled arrangement.” The main fear was that it would create weak government.
The first objective of the Colonial Power in imposing the Proportional Representation system on the then British Guiana was to remove the PPP from office before Independence, and to install a coalition of the PNC and the United Force. They did not want a political party that was truly independent, and sought to manage the country in the interest of its people, as the PPP had tried to take control in a post-colonial Guyana.
That was not the only reason. The British had in mind another reason that was not so obvious as the first; it was the removal of the PPP. That other reason was to ensure that our country would always have weak governments. They envisaged that no one party would be able to take the government, that we should always have coalitions. By this method, they felt that control of the government would always be in the hands of the Colonial Power or the United States, that had replaced Britain as the main power in the world.
It was a forged arrangement to keep a multi-racial, multi-cultural society divided.
The idea of changing the electoral system to PR arose for the first time after the victory of the PPP in the 1957 General Elections. At first it was rejected by almost all. It was mooted by Anthony Tasker, who was then a nominated member of the Legislative Council. Tasker later became the head of Bookers operations in British Guiana. As a representative of Bookers, he had every reason to keep the society divided.
The British rejected it then, they felt that it was not the best form of representation. Burnham also showed scant attention to it at that time. It was raised at the 1960 Independence talks, but did not find much support. It is clear that the British had not yet considered it.
However, after the victory of the PPP in the 1961 General Elections, the call became persistent. Burnham fell in line after the British, having been pushed by the Kennedy Administration, finally gave in to the demand for Proportional Representation as the way to change the government in British Guiana. The records now released from the Foreign Office in London show that they had decided to impose that system on the colony after President Kennedy’s visit to the UK in 1963.
While in the late 1950s and 1960s the British supported Forbes Burnham instead of Cheddi Jagan, and actually installed him, they did not totally trust him. Recall in Arthur Slazenger’s book, “John F Kennedy 1000 days in the White House”, he said that he had agreed with the British assessment of Burnham as being an opportunist, racist, and demagogue intent only on personal power.
That is why they wanted to keep him on a leash, to have him depending on them by forcing him into a coalition arrangement.
That British plan did not envisage the rigging of elections. Burnham, having assessed the international situation, felt confident that he could ditch his coalition partner and the British and Americans would not do anything about it, because the alternative was the incorruptible, principled Cheddi Jagan and the PPP.
He was right. Neither the US nor the UK tried to stop him from carrying out some of the most massively rigged elections in the world. Instead, they continued to finance him. At the same time, with their silence, he was able to maintain a façade of democracy.
The rigging of elections and the growing dictatorial rule prevented the growth of many political parties, as PR characteristically encourages. This was seen very early on in the period of the PNC in power. Just before the elections of 1968, the PNC got rid of the United Force from the coalition. By the time the UF had withdrawn from the coalition, it could not bring down the Government, because the PNC had managed to control the majority of votes in the Parliament. They did that by massive bribery and the encouragement of corruption of the ministers of Government, particularly those ministers from the United Force.
The case of Mohamed Kassim, the then Minister of Works in that coalition Government, is a classic example. Mr Kassim was from the UF. His party leader, Mr Peter D’Aguiar, who was then the Minister of Finance, reported to the Parliament that Kassim could not account for five million dollars. He strongly suggested that the money was stolen. Mr. Burnham, the Prime Minister, promptly got up and said that he had authorised the spending. Kassim immediately crossed the floor and joined the PNC. That is how the PNC got its first majority in the National Assembly.
Before that, some PPP parliamentarians were also bought over by the PNC through a combination of pressure and enticements.
Having seen all of that manoeuvring, people knew that the PNC was about to rig the elections of 1968. As a result, no new party emerged. Only four (4) parties contested those elections. They were: the PPP, PNC, UF and GUMP. A fall from seven (7) in 1964.
In 1973, elections again saw only four parties contesting. They were: PPP, PNC, Liberator Party, and a new party: the People’s Democratic Movement (PDM).
The Liberator Party was a fusion of the UF and a group called ‘Liberator’. It was headed by Dr Gunraj Kumar, a prominent and popular medical doctor. The PDM was led by Llewellyn John, a former Minister of Home Affairs in the PNC/UF Coalition. He was key in the rigging of the 1968 elections. He fell out with the PNC and created his own party.
In 1980, the contesting parties fell to three (3): the PPP, PNC and the UF. This was a demonstration that the situation was seen as hopeless by many who probably wanted to contest.
