Dear Editor,
One by the name of Mr. Edward Burrowes says that Guyana has been moving since 2018 towards “autocratization” (a political situation in which power becomes highly concentrated in one person who also moves to suppress dissent). To support his position, he cites a 2023 report prepared by the Gothenburg v-Dem Institute (V-Dem).

The V-Dem report identifies four regime types based on certain characteristics (such as freedom of expression, fair and free election, consultation, inclusivity, press censorship, etc.). The regime types are: (1) Liberal Democracy (e.g., Barbados, UK, USA); (2) Electoral Democracy (e.g., Guyana. Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago); (3) Electoral Autocracy (e.g., Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines); and (4) Closed Autocracy (e.g., Quatar, Syria, Iran).

With respect to a central issue, freedom of speech/expression, contrary to the views of some critics, the PPP/C government insists that it is not averse to criticism but reserves the right to defend government policies, programmes, and actions that have been mischaracterised. Notwithstanding, the V-Dem report suggests that Guyana has lost some ground as an electoral democracy.

The lower scores and rankings that Guyana was given on the six metrics, namely, Liberal Democracy, Electoral Democracy, Liberal Components, Egalitarian Components, Participatory Components, and Deliberative Components, were partly attributable to the APNU+AFC’s refusal to step down from power following the No Confidence Motion against them in 2018; as well as their failure to accept defeat and only after five months of imbroglio following the declaration of 2020 elections results.

It would take time to restore the democratic credentials of Guyana from these and other impasse.
Both the PPP/C government and the APNU+AFC opposition proclaim that they extol the virtues of democratic values and institutions. While the Guyana constitution is still one of the best in the Caribbean (according to Attorney General Anil Nandlall), both parties have nevertheless agreed, after a hiatus, to push forth constitutional reform through a participatory and consultative process. This process constitutes an important democratic move.

Given this and many other advances (e.g.., 39 % of MPs are Women while 12% are Amerindians) in democracy building in Guyana, I was perplexed, however, with the award of higher scores and rankings to Jamaica, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, relative to the lower scores and rankings for Guyana, particularly for the Participatory and Deliberative Metrics.

For the Participatory Metric, Jamaica scores 0.59 (R55), Suriname 0.57 (R64), Trinidad and Tobago 0.58 (R62), and Guyana scores 0.51 (R101). For the Deliberative Metrics, Jamaica scores 0.81 (R53), Suriname 0.57 (R60), Trinidad and Tobago 0.93 (R13), and Guyana 0.37 (R138). (A perfect score is 1.0, R means Rank among 179 countries).

My research finds that the scores and rankings do not match reality. The PPP/C government visits every village or community every week, listens to citizens’ problems and takes appropriate action to fix these based on rational judgment. Their manifesto, which is a product of intensive consultations and interactions with people all over the country, already has an implementation rate of 95%.

They have gone beyond the manifesto promises to execute additional projects such as the construction of 2,887 (1,240 completed) houses for low and moderate income and professional families and have built and rehabilitated hundreds of miles of community and ‘farm to market’ roads.

I reached out to the Gothenburg V-Dem Institute to seek clarification, particularly on the methodology that they utilise in compiling the six metrics. Their response is interesting. For every country they identify five experts for each Metric. This means, therefore, that they gather information on Guyana from 30 experts.

V-Dem reports that 2/3 (or 20) of the experts are residents. I asked if they could name these experts and they responded: “We do not reveal the identity of our country experts and preserve country expert confidentiality according to a strict policy.”

I wrote them again and asserted that an institute that reports on democracy and good governance as well as deviations from these, is itself, not necessarily transparent by its refusal to disclose the names of experts! Why confidentiality? The data that experts provide are not official secrets or of national security value. They are to measure the strength of democracy and the movement towards autocracy.

Mr. Burrowes has latched onto the findings of this report and accuses the PPP/C government of trying to stifle the emergence of third parties and freedom of expression. Referring to President Ali and Vice President Jagdeo’s speeches at Babu Jaan, he wrongly claims how they “threatened anyone thinking of forming a political party.”

He continues to make misleading statements such as: “Only a small percentage of the population has been enjoying the newly found oil wealth. Close friends, family members, and those with the right religious connection are the main beneficiaries of contracts in the hundreds of billions of dollars.”

The PPP/C government has built and rehabilitated thousands of miles of roads, highways, numerous bridges (2024 Budget Speech. 4.99-4.100); constructed secondary schools and 13 are to be built in 2024, plus six primary schools; constructing six regional and one specialty hospital and upgrading others; substantially increasing old-age pensions, disability benefits, and cash grants to school children; allocated 30,355 house lots; awarded 21,442 GOAL scholarships; created over 13,000 part-time jobs to alleviate unemployment and poverty; among other benefits.

How could these visible accomplishments escape the scrutiny of any critic? The trouble is that misleading statements by Mr. Burrowes and others could find their way via “experts” into the V-Dem repository.

Finally, the Guyanese “experts” who provide information to V-Dem must identify themselves in the interest of transparency and accountability. I hope that they do not view themselves as secret agents using carefully scripted information to derail the democratic path that the country is pursuing!
Sincerely,
Dr Tara Singh