Governance in an ethnically divided society: The Guyana case.

Chapter 1: Governance in an ethnically divided society By Aubrey Norton This paper gives conceptual clarity to the notions of governance and good governance. It then discusses the major problems facing Guyana as an ethnically divided society. It considers good governance as important to the democratic process. However, it is argued that the nature of the problems confronting Guyana demands a change in the political system to one based on power sharing if Guyana is to surmount its problems. It also discusses the People’s Progressive Party/Civic(PPP/C) and the People’s National Congress Reform positions on the power sharing issue before arriving at conclusions as to the way forward. Governance The concept of governance has been very much in focus recently because of ‘its capacity -unlike that of the narrower term “government”- to cover the whole range of institutions and relationships involved in the process of governing’ (Pierre and Peters 2000, 1). ‘Governance’ is however a broader term than ‘government’. It refers in its widest sense to the various ways through which social life is coordinated. Government can therefore be seen as one of the organizations involved in governance: it is possible in other words to have ‘governance without government’ (Heywood 2000, 19). Governance deals with all the actors involved in the governing and steering of society, it ‘means thinking about how to steer the economy and society, and how to reach the collective goals’ (Pierre and Peters, 2000, 1). The emphasis is on how the society is governed, the style and approach that are utilized in governing. The UNDP contends that: Governance can be seen as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences. (http://ww.undp.orgmagnet/policy chapter 1) Governance therefore focuses on the manner in which power is exercised in the management of the affairs of a country. It denotes how people are ruled, how the affairs of state are administered and regulated, a nation’s system of politics and how this functions in relation to public administration and law. Governance is seen as having a political dimension (Landell-Mills and Serageldin 1991, 304). If one accepts that governance deals with how society is governed, then to the extent that the problems to be addressed are systemic, improving or changing the way we govern will not be able to resolve problems that are rooted in the system. The resolution of such conflicts will demand both a change in the approach to governance, as well as a change in the system itself. It is for this reason that the ethnic problems in Guyana will have to be addressed both at the level of the system and at the level of governance. Although some theorists argue that the state’s role and consequently that of the government is decreasing in the governance continues in the main, to be responsible for governance. However, government’s role has not been static, ‘the role that government plays in governance is a variable and not constant … there are models of governance that are state-centred and some that are more society-centred”. (Pierre and Peters 2000, 29) Historically, governance in Guyana has been state-centred. Side by side with state centred governance has been the clamour for the establishment of a democratic society. The society therefore has been characterized by two tendencies. The first seeks to place emphasis on a key role for and even dominance of the state and tends to be advocated by the political party in government and its supporters. The second tendency seeks to shift Guyana from its state-centred nature to one that involves other key actors, especially civil society, in the governance process. This is generally advocated by the opposition forces and their supporters. However, there are situations, especially when the society is in a political crisis and the government needs a way out, where it compromises and is more disposed to the involvement of the wider society in the governance process. It is in this period that agreements are made and there is the manifestation of some amount of tolerance. However, in the Guyanese context agreement cannot be necessarily seen as progress since, ‘[r] ather than resolve conflicts, some accords merely serve to create new disputes’. (Rupesingh, 1996, 27) The importance of understanding these trends is that there exists both a movement towards state-centred and society-centred governance depending on where the political forces in the society find themselves vis-à-vis state power and the political state of affairs at the time: the tendency for those in opposition to emphasise society-centred governance. In the circumstance, there is no guarantee that if left to the political parties the society-centred approach to governance will prevail. In addition, since the position of the political forces changes or is not as stringent depending on where they find themselves vis-à-vis the state, there is need for change at the of the system to ensure that the resolution of Guyana’s ethnic problems is not left to the whims and fancies of the government and opposition, but that the system itself is conducive and suitable to the resolution of ethnic conflict. That all the political forces see the wisdom of society-centred governance while in opposition or when in crisis, since it serves either as a check against the abuse of power, or as a release valve for tension in crisis times, suggests that there is recognition that there is need for what in recent times has been called ‘good governance’ as a solution to Guyana’s problems. Good Governance Good governance is seen as promoting democracy. It is aimed at shifting power from the government as the only actor to other actors in society, thus making power more diffused, less prone to abuse, and in service of as many interests as possible. Like democracy, governance must be seen as being on a ‘continuum of shifting power closer and closer to the people’. (Norton 2002, 2) Good governance constitutes a paradigm shift in that it takes a political economy approach to the development of developing countries having for years dealt with politics as separate from economics. ‘The new perspective ... is basically a political-economy one that, in two spheres of activity in the peculiar circumstances of a large group of developing countries’. (Ferguson 1995, 161) Good ‘against the backdrop of the supremely confident triumphalism of the Western industrialised countries at the end of the 1980s. This triumphalism is linked to the apparent supremacy of market economy and liberal models of political democracy’ (Ferguson 1995, 159) and the proliferation of ‘democratisation movements that had been spreading in many developing countries’. (Ferguson 1995, 160). The foregoing suggests that good governance is contextual- it is the product of a particular national and international situation. To the extent that it is contextual it is not interwoven into the fabric of the political and economic system and thus can change with the prevailing national and international situation. In this circumstance it cannot be left to politicians’ commitment to good governance since those who govern tend to govern within the state-centred governance paradigm rather than based on democratic governance. That apart, good governance opens new vistas for addressing the problems of ethnicity in the Guyanese society in that it involves practices that are good rather than institutions run by unaccountable officials and the concomitant corrupt practices. Good governance is ‘participatory, transparent and accountable. It is also effective and equitable. And it promotes the rule of law’. (UNDP, 2). While good governance can contribute to the attenuation of ethnic problems in Guyana; it is questionable as a solution since we lack a democratic culture and many of the problems are rooted in the majoritarian nature of the inherited Westminister/Whitehall system (see Ghanny, 1994, for a comprehensive discussion). The Problem of the Majoritarian Political System The source of the problem is that these ethnically divided societies have inherited majoritarian political systems that originated i, and were created for, class divided societies and therefore are not appropriate to plural societies (see Lewis, 1965 for a thorough analysis of the limitations of the majoritarian system). The consequences of the majoritarian nature of the existing political system is that it is exclusionary. After general elections, there is a ‘majority’ government. The government then governs on its majority without being required to be responsive to the concerns of the other interests in society. This problem is compounded by the government operating on the assumption that winning an election is the most important aspect of democracy and thus governs in a manner that is based on the traditional ‘top down’ approach to governance. The policies and programmes adumbrated by government are diktat. There is no proclivity towards seeking consensus. This system excludes large sections of the society and raises the issue of the legitimacy of such a system in a plural society such as Guyana. The consequence of the ‘top down’ traditional approach to governance is that the actions of the PPP/C government which draws its support predominantly from the Indo-Guyanese community are seen as excluding a large section of the society. The excluded section is the African Guyanese community from which the PNCR predominantly draws its support. As a corollary, the political system itself produces a political division. This political division in a homogenous polity would remain political. However, in the Guyanese context where the society is plural and in which support for political parties is premised on ethnicity, the problem takes on an ethnic dimension and thus eventuates in both political and ethnic division and conflict. These political and ethnic division conflicts tend to reinforce each other and become inseparable. In the light of the foregoing, it is reasonable to conclude that Plurality is the principal political problem of most of the new states created in the twentieth century. Most of them include people who differ from each other in language or tribe or religion or race: some of these groups live side by side in a long tradition of mutual hostility: restrained in the past only by a neutral imperial power. (Lewis 1965, 66) However, in the postcolonial era there is no common enemy in the form of the imperial power. The departure of the imperial power has resulted in local political actors being responsible for the state in the postcolonial era. Problem of State Allocation of Resources The issue of state allocation of resources is one of the sources of conflict in ethnically divided societies. Guyana is a postcolonial ethnically divided society in which ‘the State overshadows the market as the controller and distributor of economic opportunity and resources’ (Rupesingh 1988, 205). With the state as the major institution responsible for the allocation of resources, ‘how the State allocates these resources will determine to a large extent, in a plural society, whether there will be cohesion and cooperation or conflict and protest’. (Norton 2002, 18)