Caribbean & Central America - August 2014 (ISSN 1741-4458)

On 4 July Guyana’s acting Foreign Minister Priya Manickchand delivered a sharp critique of US foreign policy while harshly rebuking outgoing US Ambassador Brent Hardt for ‘meddling’ in Guyana’s internal affairs and, she suggested, seeking to incite an ‘insurrection’ in the country. Manickchand was speaking at the 238th US Independence Anniversary observance at Hardt’s residence, Cummings Lodge, in an event that also functioned as the ambassador’s farewell.

Manickchand was reprimanding Hardt for a speech he delivered a few days earlier to a newly formed NGO in which he strongly criticised the Guyanese government and president for failing to hold local government elections (LGE). Hardt, apparently eager to utilise his latitude as an outgoing diplomat, arguably had ample cause to make such a public stand in the first instance. Guyana has not, to the benefit of the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP), held LGE for over 20 years and Hardt’s views form part of a growing chorus of international (or at least Western) pressure for the Guyanese government to adhere to the constitutional requirement that such elections be held every three years. Ultimately, the bizarre episode of diplomatic mud-slinging underscores the economically damaging paralysis of Guyanese politics at the national level, as well as the PPP’s apparent intent on denying democracy at the local level.

Guyana’s race politics

Guyana’s politics are largely defined along the country’s racial divisions and colonial past. For almost four decades government was held by the People’s National Congress (PNC) party that has traditionally attracted support from the Afro-Guyanese minority, which, as of 2002, accounted for roughly a third of the country’s population. The PNC managed to sustain its power largely by rigging elections and also, particularly during 1950-65 and in the context of the Cold War, receiving some British and US support. The PPP, which draws its support generally from Guyana’s more numerous (around 40%) ethnic Indian majority, came to power in 1992 after the PNC conceded to holding legitimate elections.

At the most recent general elections in November 2011 the PPP won its fifth consecutive poll and its leader, Ronald Ramotar, became president. However, the party/president attracted only a plurality of the national vote (48.6%) and, having won 32 out of 65 seats, the PPP lost the parliamentary majority it had held for the previous 19 years. Moreover, leading a coalition with several other parties under the ‘A Partnership for National Unity’ (APNU) ticket, the PNC took 41% of the vote. Combined with the third placed Alliance For Change’s (AFC) 10% of votes, these two opposition blocs collectively represent a majority in Guyana’s parliament with their 33 seats. The hung parliament has caused political gridlock and the country’s fragile economy has suffered as a result.

Perhaps most prominently in this respect has been Guyana’s failure to pass legislation required by the IMF-backed Financial Action Task Force (FATF)—specifically, the so-called Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Bill—that has resulted in the country’s regional blacklisting by the Caribbean financial watchdog and the possibility, depending on the outcomes of a current FATF inquiry, that the blacklisting be extended internationally. The opposition bloc is refusing to cooperate with the government on this matter until the president provides his assent to a host of bills (the most important of which relates to LGE) that the two parties have pushed through parliament since 2011.

What Hardt said

On 30 June ambassador Hardt, while speaking at a function for a newly formed youth NGO, the ‘Blue Caps’, took the Guyanese government and President Ramotar to task on the “seemingly expanding array of excuses” they have provided for not holding LGE in spite of the 20 year delay, Guyana’s constitution, recent law, and even the PPP’s own policy manifesto for the 2011 election. Here is a sample of what he had to say.

“One of the more creative excuses came from the PPP General Secretary, who suggested that the people of Guyana are not in the mood for LGE…[But] elections are constitutionally and legislatively mandated. They are not dependent on a mood…The President also recently indicated he would have called elections if his ‘government had the majority in parliament’. But, again, the constitution does not say: elections every three years, except when the executive does not have a majority. It says every three years.”

In what Manickchand and the government would later describe as a veiled call for a popular revolt, the ambassador also remarked: “And let me be clear, you will need to continue doing so [pushing for LGE] and doing so with persistence. It appears unfortunately that local government elections will not be called unless the people of Guyana demand them – demand their constitutional right – and raise their voices in ever greater numbers.”

Speaking at the US independence anniversary and his farewell a couple of days later Hardt reiterated his views on the LGE issue—while also, seemingly as if to draw parallels to the current situation in Guyana, describing the illiberal ruling style of King George that spurred America’s independence movement—before handing the podium over to Manickchand.

What Manickchand said

After briefly acknowledging the occasion, Manickchand launched into an eight-minute censuring of the US in general and its outgoing ambassador specifically. Referring to the US’s Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), Manickchand wryly explained, “of course, we don’t have the strength or the power your people had in those days to fight against King George, so we have to comply with what big brother wants…lest the big stick is used against us”. On the US ambassador himself, Manickchand described how over his three years he had “contributed to a tension-filled relationship with the government of Guyana.” The Blue Caps speech was described as his “most recent assault on the president and government of Guyana” which went “beyond the boundaries of professionalism and diplomacy” and made the “situation…intolerable.”

Manickchand’s remarks were defended by the government, mostly condemned by the opposition parties, and varyingly depicted by different local media outlets. However, if Hardt’s intention had been to motivate the government into action and draw attention to the LGE issue, there were signs the outgoing ambassador had made some ground. Manickchand and the government argue that Hardt’s criticisms are misguided because the ambassador does not properly understand the Guyanese Electoral Commission’s (GECOM) position on the matter. GECOM consists of a chairman and six commissioners, three from the PPP and three from the opposition parties. The permanent body, as the ambassador made reference to in his Blue Caps address, has repeatedly said that it is ready for LGE and is simply awaiting the government green light. The three PPP-appointed GECOM commissioners, however, say this is not the case and that there are in fact a series of unspecified issues to be addressed before elections can be held. In the wake of the Hardt-Manickchand episode, the PPP’s three commissioners finally issued a statement outlining what exactly the issues were and why they meant GECOM was not ready for LGE. These range from administrative issues to be resolved, such as “some constituencies do not have adequate registrants to effectively field adequate lists of candidates” to other apparent problems such as “there needs to be a vigorous education programme to inform and educate the populace on the new local government elections system”.

In response, however, GECOM’s chairman Dr Steve Surujbally has come out publicly to challenge the validity of each of the arguments presented by the PPP-commissioners while reiterating GECOM’s position that it is “fully prepared and committed to move formally into an election mode with immediacy, if and when the Commission is mandated to conduct Local Government Elections.”

The takeaway points

US-Guyana relations had been under strain for some time leading up to this affair. The FATCA issue remains ongoing and earlier this year the PPP government initially refused a leadership and democracy (LEAD) program on the grounds that there had been insufficient consultation with Guyana. Yet the relationship is hardly beyond repair (indeed, the government recently agreed to allow the establishment of a US Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA] office in Guyana) and, relative to the political paralysis that is currently besetting the small country’s economy, it is not what is important here.

With its political stocks apparently on the decline, the ostensible logic behind the PPP’s refusal to allow LGE is that it fears (or perhaps knows) it would lose the Afro-Guyanese stronghold of Georgetown to the PNC and thus further have its power eroded. Likewise, given its unimpressive performance at the last national poll, calling an early general election to resolve the stalemate is not an attractive strategy for the PPP either, as they would risk losing entirely their already slim grip on power. It is in this context, Stabroek News argued, that “the government intends to use the period before it is required to call new general elections to prospect for better electoral vantage points and propaganda gains.”

In the meantime, Guyana is likely to remain economically stagnant as the combined opposition continues to make its support for key pieces of legislation such as the AML/CFT Bill contingent on the government allowing LGE to take place. Thus, unless either side becomes willing to budge—with Hardt and other Western diplomats suggesting the onus rests squarely on the government—there appears little prospect of the political impasse being resolved.