The Performance and Sustainability of the Standard System of Political Democracy: A Comparative Analysis of Guyana and Suriname

• Author: Dr. Jack Menke
• Pages: 203-233

203

The Performance And Suitability Of The Standard System Of Political Democracy

THE PERFORMANCE AND

SUITABILITY OF THE STANDARD

SYSTEM OF POLITICAL DEMOCRACY:

A Comparative Analysis of Guyana and

Suriname

Dr. Jack Menke

1212

1212

12

Introduction

Half a century ago the concept of the plural society was introduced as a

descriptive category for culturally and ethnically diverse societies (Furnivall

1948; van Lier 1950). This concept referred to a society with a low solidarity

and composed of separate segments that cooperate primarily in the economic

and political spheres, with the state power monopolized mostly by one segment

(van Lier 1950).

MG Smith elaborated the plural society arguing that culture being the

foundation of multiethnic societies.1 In plural societies, the cultural segments

do not share a single set of basic institutions – such as religion, kinship,

education and economy – and live side by side with a common governmental

system. Smith, like van Lier, stresses the monopoly of state power by one

group or segment. The conceptualization by MG Smith was based on

empirical research in Jamaica, Grenada and Nigeria, societies composed of

predominant blacks, whites and a group of mixed people. From the 1960s

until today the ‘plural society’ remained attractive to many social scientists

who applied this concept to Guyana and Suriname, Caribbean societies with

an even greater ethnic and cultural diversity.2

At the time many Caribbean states became involved in the current of

decolonization and political independence, political scientists moved into

the plural society debate. The cultural institutions of the plural society model

became the focus of sociologists and social anthropologists, while the state

being the domain of the ethnic elites, became a concern of political scientists

204 CARICOM Options: Towards Full Integration Into the World Economy

(Dew 1978/ 2001; Ryan 1988/1989/1992). The latter dealt with conceptual

models on the distribution of power and the mechanisms of the state in dealing

with the elites of the various ethnic segments.

Since the introduction of the plural society and related concepts, the

multiethnic societies appeared to be more complex and different from what

was described and expected. In addition to the traditional domain of culture

and the distribution of state power, other issues and concepts were launched

in the ‘development debate’ since the 1960s - such as development, equity,

participation and good governance - that reflect the search for solutions for

the complex reality.

At the turn of the twentieth century, Guyana and Suriname face a number

of problems, of which some appear to be persistent. The problems, ranging

from ethnic disharmony, political instability to blocked economic development,

raise questions on the suitability and performance of the standard democratic

system, whether it is the majoritarian or the non-majoritarian (consociational)

model. The majoritarian political model is a two-party political system of

fair and free elections generally based on a majority electoral principle,

which entitles the winning party to govern on behalf of all electors and

(ethnic) groups in the society. The non-majoritarian model is characterized

by a multi-party system of fair and free elections based on a proportionate

electoral and coalition principle and the cooperation between political elites

of the major (ethnic) groups to govern on behalf of the electorate and these

(ethnic) groups.

The article focuses on Guyana and Suriname, where Indo-Caribbeans

and Afro-Caribbeans are the two major ethnic groups. Guyana is considered

to be a society with a political tradition that is close to a majoritarian model,

while Suriname is illustrative of a ‘plural society’ with a non-majoritarian

model. The aim is to explain differences and similarities in the structures of

these societies, the political system that emerged, and the performance since

the first election under universal suffrage. The comparative approach offers

the tools for analysis of the political system on other critical issues, such as

the political leadership, political instability, ethnic instability, constitutional

issues, the impact of international factors, and socioeconomic performance.

This article adopts the assumption that while there are differences between

Guyana and Suriname with regard to the ethnic diversity, the political system

and ethnic conflict, both societies are in a crisis of democracy and development,

that cannot be explained by the ‘plural society’ and related concepts.