MASS-BASED POLITICAL PARTIES DO NOT HAVE A TRADITION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY
July 23, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source - Kaieteur News
Let us not bluff ourselves! The mass-based political parties in Guyana do not have a tradition of being liberal parties or, more importantly, of employing liberal democratic practices within their parties. But that is nothing to be worried about, because almost all of the mass-based political parties in the Caribbean are like that.
There is of course the usual widow-dressing to try to convince the masses that democracy is alive and well within these parties. But when you strip these mass-based political parties down to the skeletal structures, they are far from democratic.
So let us not pretend that the election of office bearers at the Congresses of these political parties represents the will of their membership or support base. It does not.
There is both overt and covert canvassing and jockeying for positions within parties. However, in the final analysis, there will always remain a core sanctum that controls these mass-based political parties.
There is a small elite group of individuals who determine who is elected and who is not. This elite group is able to use its position of influence over the machinery of the party to determine how many delegates are accredited and how the balance of power will pan out in terms of the choices of these delegates.
A few years ago, APNU had a process by which individuals were able to go out and address caucuses of their party and try to win their support. Was this democratic? Ask those who participated whether it was. It would have been, if every member of the party had an equal vote in electing the leader. But how the system worked was that it was the groups who had to send delegates to the Congress. And he who controls that process, controls the outcome of the elections.
The race within the PNCR for leader was close on one occasion. But the inner sanctum was never going to allow that development to repeat itself. And it will not repeat itself again. Lightning does not strike twice in mass-based political parties.
Mass-based political parties, especially those with leftist traditions like the PNC and the PPP, are not prone to have internal democracy. Indeed, one can question whether real democracy exists within the Democratic Party and the Republican parties or whether it is big business that still pulls the strings in both of these parties in the United States.
It has now been revealed that amongst the issues that are going to be proposed for reform of the PNCR Constitution at this week’s Congress – for the 2016 Congress – would be one member-one vote. That is the membership, and not their delegates, will be allowed to elect leaders should the amendment be passed. But that will not be effective until 2016, if indeed it is passed.
Now this may seem to be democratic, but would it allow for order within the party? Someone once said that true democracy would represent mob rule. It would be a bold step for the PNCR to move towards a system of one member-one vote. But whether the party will survive such a system is questionable.
If such a system is implemented, there will have to be a tightening up of the rules governing membership, as was proposed in a Congress of the party in either 1975 or 1977.
At that time, a number of persons were becoming members of the party because of the privileges that were accorded those with party cards. These persons were able to get jobs and use the party card to abuse their positions. There was a sentiment expressed then that perhaps there was a need for weeding out those elements that only wanted to be part of the party for the benefits that they would enjoy. As such, one suggestion was that there be a period of apprenticeship before someone may be accorded membership status. This it was felt would build a stronger commitment to the party and remove political opportunists from within its ranks.
If the PNCR decides to move towards the membership directly electing the leaders of the party, it would be an important development in mass-based political parties in Guyana. It would, of course, require the tightening of membership rules. Otherwise five thousand PPP members would join the PNCR and elect someone of the PPP’s liking to head the PNCR.
And this is precisely why most of our mass-based political parties have been constrained in terms of adopting liberal democratic practices within their parties. And this possibility of being penetrated and overrun by their political nemeses will also be used by the inner sanctums within these parties to justify their continued domination of decision-making.