THE People’s Progressive Party’s continued wild accusations against the coalition government, ranging from claims of mismanagement to being in violation of the constitution, call into question the role of the opposition in the democratic process.

Guyana has over the years been a victim of both government over-reach and opposition overzealousness. Some may argue, with much justification, that the two outcomes are inter-related. Suffice to say that the country’s democratic credentials have been called into question to the point where some analysts have described us as authoritarian—at least at different points in our post-colonial journey.

In fact, Professor Clive Thomas who in the 1980s wrote the seminal book, “The Rise of the Authoritarian State in the Periphery,” was moved in the not-so-distant past to describe Guyana as a “Criminalised State.” This perception of the state of our democracy may have played a pivotal role in the historic change of government in 2015. Just over three years into the life of the new government, the opposition PPP has consistently attempted to call into question the democratic intent of those in charge of managing the state. Such charges are a norm in Guyanese and Caribbean opposition praxis. In many cases, these opposition parties were themselves recent perpetrators of democratic abuse—a case of “the pot calling the kettle black.”

The simple truth is that the now opposition PPP presided over one of the most undemocratic governments in the modern history of the Anglophone Caribbean. From the descent into a culture of extra-judicial killings to institutional assaults on the media, to the merging of the party with the state and government to the wholesale transfer of state assets into private hands, that government took Guyana close to the edge of systemic dysfunction.

But if one were unfamiliar with Guyanese politics, one would have much difficulty associating those ills with the now opposition party. But a close observation of its behaviour would give some insight into the way it governed. In other words, there has not been much change in the general approach of the PPP to politics and society, since it lost the seat of power. Its politics of domination, political spite, ethno-racial fear-mongering and manifest destiny are as active now as they were while the party was in power.

The argument here is that the PPP, in opposition, is undermining democracy as much as when it held power. Understandably, the burden is on government to uphold the democratic principles of governance. But opposition parties are just as responsible for that outcome. Although the day-to-day exercise of power is disproportionately weighted in favour of governments, the opposition does have strategic instruments of democratic check on governments. So those parties could in some instances hold the political process to ransom.

It is our considered opinion that this is exactly what the PPP has been doing. Just as it used the cover of democracy to govern as an authoritarian government, it is now using the cover of opposition oversight to undermine democracy. The tactic is simple, but subtle—frustrate the government with the hope that in the interest of discharging its constitutional duties it acts in ways that the opposition can deem to be undemocratic. It is a case of the PPP, in Bob Marley’s words, “playing smart and not being clever.”

Our Westminster system assumes that at some levels the opposition is part of government and as such, has certain fundamental obligations to make the system work effectively. The PPP has deliberately used these obligations as barriers to democratic advance. The party’s attitude to selection of the GECOM Chair comes to mind—the opposition leader utilised his major role in the process to hurt and eventually dismantle the democratic spirit of the Carter Formula.  The same approach was put to work on the sugar issue and the appointment of top officers to the judicial branch. They constantly vulgarised the National Assembly until they were able to get a government MP to vote with it on a no-confidence motion which is currently being challenged in the courts.

The truth of the matter is that, despite investable errors, this government cannot be charged with presiding over an authoritarian state. In fact, one of its crowning achievements is precisely its sterling record in the areas of human rights and the upholding of civil liberties. Such an assessment cannot be reasonably refuted by even government detractors. So, the PPP’s antics are uncalled for—a case of creating a fictionalised dictatorship and seeking to normalise it.

It is therefore the responsibility of fair-minded social and political forces to stand in the way of this travesty. There must be a distinction between opposition and civil society oversight on the one hand and wilful destabilisation of the process. There must always be a place for opposition critique, but such critique must be grounded in reason and commitment to democratic and moral principles.