IN my last Wednesday piece, I wrote: “I will devote an entire column to rebutting the editorial of the Stabroek News (SN) of Sunday, September 3 in which the meaning of democracy was corrupted: Here is that analysis now.”

I quote from the newspaper: “What stands in the way of this approach is a fundamental difference between what the US and, it might be added, many citizens here interpret as the meaning of democracy, and the government’s far more limited definition of that concept.”

I am not going to expend column space on a definition of democracy but suffice it to say once you pass through a university programme studying political theory and philosophy, you would know that American democracy is as flawed in the practice of democracy as obtained in all democratic countries on Planet Earth.
In fact, it is doubtful that any serious debate between modern philosophers would result in the conclusion that the United States is the democratic blueprint for other countries to adopt. The way judges are selected in India is far less ideological and more democratic than in the US.

In no other democratic country in the world, does the electoral system has, as the US has, an institution named the Electoral College which is fundamental antithetical to the process of one person-one vote. For the moment, I will leave out a discussion on the nature of journalism in the US which hardly can be classified as meeting the sacred values inherent in journalism.

Let’s return to very brief discussion as to what democracy is as alluded to in my last Wednesday offering. The quote above from SN did not tell us what the American definition of democracy is and did not tell us in what ways Guyanese citizens’ interpretation differs from that of the ruling party in government.

The words I quoted above from SN refer to the government’s “far more limited definition of that concept.” Here is the problem and this is where as I stated in my Wednesday piece that counter-narratives come in. My take on that editorial is simply a newspaper ranting about a government it does not like and resorts to the vulgarization of political concepts.
In what ways is the government of Guyana practising limited democracy in the comparative context of other democracies? For us to judge the thinness of democracy in Guyana don’t we have to do a comparative analysis? My point is that if we do that comparative project then Guyana’s democracy rates very highly and its president comes out as a man in touch with the population.

We are told that in the winner-take-all system in Guyana, parliament becomes a farce because of the majority one party holds over the others. In the UK parliament, the ruling party has a majority of 80. Is the UK not a democracy? In Guyana, the head of government campaigned in an election and won the election. In the UK, the head of government was not elected in a direct general poll.

In Guyana, the Vice-President, Mr. Jagdeo, just lost a court case at the appellate level. In Guyana, two leading newspapers crusade against the government and receive hundreds of millions of dollars between them annually that keep them afloat. How limited is Guyana’s democracy when compared to others? My contention is that when that comparison is done, Guyana compares favourably with any other free nations on Planet Earth.

The title of this column refers to a juxtaposition in the views of SN and eminent politician, former Speaker of the House and attorney, Mr. Ralph Ramkarran.
I quote SN first then Mr. Ramkarran. Here is SN on civil society: “Government does not believes that it needs to listen to anyone else including civil society.” Let us now cite another perspective on civil society and the words are not coming from Frederick Kissoon who is a critic of both civil society and the Stabroek News.

Here is Mr. Ramkarran in the same Sunday edition of SN: “It was, therefore, no surprise to me that at this time there were only a few muffled voices protesting the attempt to rig the elections of 2020 and that the vociferous civil society that does not spare the PPP or its governments, fell largely silent. Civil society must not now complain when some articulate what they believe to be its tarnished record.”

In that Sunday editorial, SN refers to an action of the President Ali as “untended comedy.” Can it be said that Guyana is witnessing unintended comedy in that the same civil society that Ramkarran so poignantly described are the very people SN wants the government to consult. Unintended comedy in Guyana becomes comedy non-stop.