Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT
Contrary to the experiences of most countries emerging from authoritarian rule, the return of free and fair elections in Guyana and the concomitant fall of the authoritarian People's National Congress (PNC) regime in 1992, which had governed the country for an uninterrupted 28 years, have not led to democratization of the society and economic development. Instead the country has been gripped by ongoing political instability that manifests itself as racial violence, party rivalry and zero sum politics that have led to a dysfunctional state and society and the exacerbation of socio-economic problems. This paper argues that one of the principal reasons for this development is the failure of the PPP to forge a National Consensus just prior to the 1992 elections and immediately afterwards.
Introduction
Guyana's October 5, 1992, election, which resulted in the defeat of the incumbent People's National Congress (PNC) after 28 years in office, brought an end to a significant chapter in the country's history. The outgoing government, despite significant political and economic reforms in the last seven years of its tenure, had presided over the most authoritarian postcolonial Caribbean state. In the process of consolidating this authoritarian state, the PNC had transformed it into a de facto one-party state over which the party was paramount, and which systematically trampled on civil rights and liberties while closing all legal and constitutional means of removing it from power.
It took persevering opposition both inside and outside the country, a changed international environment following the end of the Cold War, and changes within the PNC regime, to push the situation to breaking point. Acting under the weight of mass opposition pressure for democratization and the dictates of the new international environment, the PNC regime initiated a transition period characterized by political reforms and economic liberalization beginning in 1986. Although the thrust of the political reform was less aggressive than its economic counterpart, it nevertheless spawned a less repressive political order that proved to be conducive to the opposition's crusade for electoral democracy.
While the fundamental tenets of the authoritarian state remained intact, the reforms created a degree of political space for the opposition that was hitherto denied it. For example, opposition parties were able to organize and agitate without overt government sabotage;...