ONE qualitative difference between pre and post- 1992 Guyana is that prior to 1992 there was an absence of political democracy and consequently low levels of accountability in the country. It is an established fact that all elections since 1964, both at the national and regional levels, were blatantly rigged to perpetuate PNC rule which was largely responsible for the high level of morbidity in the body politic during that period. For close to three decades the nation was subjected to undemocratic and dictatorial rule with dire consequences for the economic and social life of the Guyanese people.

Today, Guyanese can hold their elected representatives accountable in a way not hitherto possible and they can now exercise the choice of returning them to office in free and fair elections or voting them out if in their opinion they have not delivered on their election promises.

This was not the case prior to 1992 as then PNC regime effectively blocked all avenues for regime change through democratic means.

As we approach yet another general and regional election, it is important that we take into consideration this important fact which is often downplayed by some so-called "analysts" who seem to believe that the current PPP/C administration is an imposition on the Guyanese people as was the case before 1992. Unlike the PNC, the PPP was democratically elected and has the distinct honour of being the only political party that has increased its share of representation in all the administrative regions of Guyana. Today, the PPP is the most reprsentative political party in the country in terms of multi-ethnic support. The last general and regional elections bear ample testimony to this fact and from all indication this trend of voting behaviour will continue on a larger scale.

The truth is that there are indications of a drift away from the race- based politics of the 1960's to one that is more issue-oriented. It is important to note in this regard that the PPP in the elections of 1961 and 1964 were unable to get a majority of the popular votes due to gerrymandering and other forms of manipulation despite having won a majority of the parliamentary seats in the 1961 elections. In other words, its parliamentary strength was larger than its popular strength. The PPP had won 57 percent of the seats in the 1961 elections with only 47 percent of the popular vote. It was basically out of a recognition of this fact that prompted the British Government in collaboration with the US administration and local reactionaries to change the constitution to allow for Proportional Representation as opposed to the previous constituency model which favoured the PPP.

The PPP/C, to its credit has won a majority of the popular votes in all elections since 1992, something it was unable to do in the 1960's which speaks to the growing popularity of the party across the ethnic spectrum. Put in a different way, the PPP has become much more universalistic in its appeal especially among the Amerindians and the Mixed/Afro-Guyanese segment of the population as the results of the last elections so conclusively established.

My own assessment of voting behaviour in ethnically diverse societies such as ours is that the tendency to vote on the basis of race diminishes in proportion to an increase in the size of the country's economy and the extent to which the economic gains are distributed in a fair and equitable manner as in the case of Guyana under the PPP/C administration.

Written by HYDAR ALLY

Excerpts from the Guyana Chronicle