THE JAGDEO Administration has been called all kinds of names under the sun – dictatorship, elected dictatorship, fascist, creeping dictatorship, totalitarian, ethnocracy, inter alia -. I suspect that the name-callers marvel at the great lengths they would go to ridicule this Administration. But this name calling largely happens because Guyana has a fragile democracy.

In spite of everything, this frail democracy has an openness that makes it vulnerable; for instance, consider press freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, among others; some fundamental freedoms that people take for granted; freedoms that demonstrate this openness; and where the abuse of such freedoms poses a threat to the fragile democracy. Nevertheless, this openness also contributes to the stability of Guyana’s democracy. This is the essence of some interesting ideas flowing from S.N. Eisenstadt’s paper “The Paradox of Democratic Regimes: Fragility and Transferability.”

As previously noted, this openness not only sustains Guyana’s fragile democracy, but this openness, also, brings with it certain tensions. Freedom vs. control is one such tension. Here, we may see the first signs of uneasiness, as when any government in its wisdom makes changes to create a modern society. As a result, there could be pockets of resistance for those people who dread the changes, as many may feel a threat to their freedoms. For instance, if this Government introduces a broadcasting authority, the abuse of press freedom that large parts of the private media enjoy today will quickly fritter away. And then the hullaballoo about the loss of press freedom will promptly become the new political agenda item; and a new round of name calling and protest will develop into the order of the day. This tension coming from freedom vs. control produces opposition to any change in society. Guyana experiences this onslaught on a daily basis.

Nevertheless, as we strive to create a modern society, we would come face-to-face with another tension: Vision vs. routine. This tension describes a battle between having a ‘total’ vision and a more pluralistic view, and the best practices to sustain this vision. In this situation, conflicts, nevertheless, will become a feature of people’s lives as they do battle to determine the best vision and the best practices for society. And, indeed, center/periphery power relations (those with power/those subordinate to this power) would shift, depending on which sector becomes the victor in this battle of vision.

Nonetheless, conflicts are useful because it is only through conflicts that we can generate change. But we must be able to manage the conflict. And, of course, democracy encourages this battle of multiple views and practices within the political arena. In Guyana today, the multiplicity of views and opinions that the unregulated mass media indiscriminately present is an undisputed testimony to the functionality of democracy in this land.

In Guyana, as democracy advances, albeit fragile, the people are evolving as the owner of the public good and interest. This assertion, obviously, will germinate a barrage of protests and disagreements from some well-meaning quarters; but as they ruminate, they should keep in mind that this democracy is fragile, for all too often; some people refer to Guyana’s democracy as bearing little or no comparison with countries that have advanced democracies, notably, the U.S.A. Well, the U.S. attained its Independence nearly 250 years ago. And just to hammer home the point, I want to emphasize that Guyana still has a frail democracy; for this reason, any assessment and subsequent evaluation of Guyana’s democracy would require tapping into the parameters of its youthfulness and fragility.

And in a general sense, this view of the people as the holder of the general will and the common good brings to the fore a number of related problems: from the public good as enshrined in the constitution, to the relationship between the public good and the separate interests of individuals and groups, and to different understandings of the public good. According to Eisenstadt, this discourse on the people as the holder of the public good distinguishes between pluralistic and monolithic thinking of politics.

A pluralistic vision would garner the needs and interests of distinct individuals and groups initially through a written or unwritten constitution, parliament, and a judiciary; these measures would sustain the view that people are the owners of the public good. Eisenstadt argued that the totalitarian and authoritarian thinking rejected the view that the people are the holder of the public good; and this thinking is part of the Jacobin belief that totalitarian political action can change society.

At any rate, Guyana’s democracy is fragile and evolving, a democracy that continues to embrace the interests of many different individuals and groups; a pluralistic conception. Refer to 78B, a new insertion in the Constitution, for some endorsement of the pluralistic notion. For this reason, labeling the Jagdeo Administration as a dictatorship, elected dictatorship, fascist, creeping dictatorship, totalitarian, ethnocracy, among others, is inaccurate. And, spare me the comparisons of democracy with the U.S., as comparing things that are unlike is inappropriate. Furthermore, the frequency of these U.S. comparisons with Guyana has become so awesome that these ‘comparison-mongers’ in some brave new world would be slapped with a ‘misdemeanor’ charge. (Feedback: pmperspectives@aol.com themisirpost.wordpress.com)