DIRECT democracy is the oldest form of democratic engagement; it was used in what we now call ancient civilisations. This form of engagement allowed for citizens to be directly involved in the decision making of their communities.

As the Western world moved from smaller city-states to larger nation-states, it moved away from direct democracy to a more indirect or representative democracy, whereby citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. The void was ostensibly filled by local government or local democracy. But this level of engagement, over time, also became a product of indirect democracy. One of the consequences of this development was that the practice of meeting to discuss and pronounce on public affairs became less and less a staple of the democratic process.

Here in Guyana, modern political engagement has been characterised by the public meeting, where leaders and parties summon the people to the street-corners to engage in political discourse. But this discourse has been more a one-way communication, where the leaders speak with little or no opportunity for dialogue with the citizens. Usually, these meetings are effective in mobilising large numbers of citizens in one place as a show of partisan strength, and in whipping up political fever among the people. The public meeting, therefore, has its usefulness as a mobilisation tool, but is less effective as a form of serious two-way dialogue between the governors and the governed.
The smaller bottom-house or school-house meetings, which have also been part of mass engagement in Guyana, is theoretically more suited to two-way dialogue. But, in practice, it serves the same function as the street-corner meetings. It is a more clandestine form of mobilisation, where leaders take the liberty to say things which could not be uttered at the public meetings. While there is some degree of participation by the audience, such participation is less about the concerns of the citizens, and more about political competition and party solidarity.

There is, therefore, a void in the political process as far as genuine opportunities for civic dialogue between the governors and the governed are concerned. In the age of technology and the electronic and social media, even direct engagement and the democratic process, the public and bottom-house meetings are becoming less and less frequent. But, effective as these media are in meeting people, they cannot be substitutes for real face-to-face two-way engagement. At least, not yet.

Here in Guyana, governance has been negatively affected by this lack of genuine engagement with the people in between elections. This robs the governors of the opportunity to feel the pulse of citizens. In a culture where instant polls are not a staple, this distance from people could lead to errors in political judgement, as governments often find out that their policy initiatives are out of step with the thinking of the people. The other negative consequence of the lack of direct engagement is that there is little opportunity for the people to lodge complaints and concerns about developments in their communities directly to government leaders. This often leads to alienation on the part of citizens who inevitably feel that their input and concerns are not important enough to those who govern.

In light of the above, we had welcomed and congratulated the Ministry of the Presidency for initiating the Public Day initiative, where citizens got an opportunity to speak directly to the leaders. It was not a public meeting where the leaders were asking for votes; it was, instead, a genuine meeting where the concerns of citizens were raised and many received on the sport solutions. Often, all our people want is a hearing; an opportunity to look the bosses in the eye and relate their concerns. This vital aspect of democratic engagement should be further encouraged. Witnessing our Government Ministers in the public arena, not looking for votes or shaking hands for the cameras, but, instead, tending to the flock certainly lifted the quality of our democracy. The first Public Day was held in one section of Georgetown and then it was spread across the country. We know that government ministers and MPs continue to engage citizens on the ground and this is applauded; but there is a case for the revival of the public day initiative.