WHEN the dust has been settled and the country moves on from the controversy generated over the government’s decision to raise its ministers’ salaries, there may be a few positives for the political process.One such positive is the fact that supporters of the government were loudest in the protest against the government’s action. It is not very often that you find supporters of a party rising up in protest against that party, particularly when it is in government.

Guyanese and Caribbean politics function against the background of a strong culture of political tribalism wherein there is a kind of religious relationship between supporters and leaders. The party becomes a sacred institution that is beyond reproach by its own, and the leaders — especially the maximum leader — becomes a god-like figure. As they say, the party works in mysterious ways.

In our ethnic environment, that tribalism becomes even more intense. The party becomes synonymous with the ethnic group, leaving little space for party members to voice their disapproval of the party’s actions.

We have seen so many leaders suffer at the hands of the party. The most recent example is Ralph Ramkarran, a longstanding member of the PPP who almost became president of the country. Ramkarran dared to criticise the party in public, he probably thought that times had changed. The party’s hammer was swift and brutal in its response to this stalwart, who belongs to one of its founding families. Ramkarran was only the latest in a long list of casualties on both sides of the political divide.

Some have bemoaned the fact that, for most of its tenure, the PPP’s mass base did not stand up enough to its excesses. This obviously played a critical role in the evolution of the party’s paramountcy and all that comes with that situation. Whether it was political assassination, or economic and political discrimination, or instances of official corruption, party supporters were generally silent. Some influential voices openly supported or justified those excesses. Maybe some supporters were driven by fear of government retribution, while others were influenced by ethnic insecurity. In the end, the country’s political culture degenerated.

That attitude continued during the early days of the new government. Initial criticisms by some supporters were quickly drowned out by a very protective base. The cry “it’s too early, give them a chance” was very evident.

Ironically, that may have given the government a false sense of security. But that quickly changed with the announcement of the increases. Many of the supporters on the ground, their organisations and public activists who support the government, came out against the move. It was an unexpected break with tradition that obviously took the leaders and political scientists and analysts by surprise.

We feel that our democracy is enriched when party supporters can feel free to criticise their party and government on matters of principle. That is how it should be. People should not allow love for party to drive them to condone perceived government excesses, and government should not view such criticism as disloyalty. Self-criticism is an important aspect of democracy, and it should be preserved. Our government should be better because of this experience.