The Freddie Kissoon column…Notes on Guyana’s political sociology

Aug 18, 2008 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

In his KN column of August 3, Ravi Dev wrote, “In Guyana the minority African section has a vast overrepresentation in the key state institutions, especially in the Armed Forces, and has used this incumbency to neutralize the numerical advantage of the Indians.

This creates an Ethnic Security Dilemma for Indians since, even though they are a majority under the Westminster system and can form the Executive after “free and fair elections” (Dev’s commas), that Executive cannot guarantee stability, especially for their supporters.”

This is a very sweeping statement about Guyana’s political sociology. Nothing is wrong with profound, iconoclastic assessments about one’s country. One should expect that such analytical judgements will be questioned, though.

This essay here is a polemical rejection of the Indian Security Dilemma, as posited by Dev based on his argument of the African control of State security institutions. Included in Dev’s treatment of the State are the judiciary and the public service.

Important to note is that nowhere in this thesis, which Dev has promulgated since 1992 but which gained currency in the aftermath of the violence of the 1997 elections, does he collapse State sector personnel with the general African population. His key concept is the African State employee, whether police, soldier, judge or fire-fighter.

The utility of the argument about African domination of the State and its destabilizing potential on the Executive of the Indian PPP revolves around its factual nature.

If the research cannot support the activist nature of the wider public sector in diminishing the latitude of the Executive to act, then the hypothesis falls.

In my polemical presentation here, I will outline a fact sheet to prove that African employees in the crucial institutions of the Government have not, either implicitly or explicitly, sought to undermine the rule of the PPP. I assign no importance to the individual case, since that does not represent the overall trend.

In all situations, you have the exception. So if a soldier hates the PPP Government, that does not mean his attitude is symptomatic of the GDF.

Firstly, if African security officers and judicial officials had a predisposition to weaken the PPP Government, the 16-year-old presidency that comes from the PPP forming the Government could not have lasted that long.

Again, I warn readers not to equate the public employees with the larger population.
There has been unrest in 1992, 1997 and 2001, but there has been no presentation from any Indian rights organization that State security played an unprofessional role in the conflagration.

The opposition PNC and the trade union movement have claimed that, in all three situations, the police used excessive force. One protestor outside the Elections Commission was shot in the eye.

There were allegations that workers were brutalized outside John Fernandes on Water Street. Opposition Leader Robert Corbin was arrested outside the Office of the President. His denunciation of police mistreatment of him led to riotous behaviour and fires in 2001.

In all the cases of African activists being brought before the courts, the presiding officer was African.
The DPP and the judge were Africans in the Mark Benschop saga. At the time, Mr. Benschop was the most high profile anti-Government activist.

If we accept Dev’s postulations, then both the DPP and the judge should have allowed Benschop his freedom. Mr. Benschop told the press that the judge erred in not accepting a no-case submission by his lawyers.

The DPP was an African when Ronald Waddell was charged in the aftermath of the 2001 elections. Mr. Jagdeo inherited the presidency under Mr. Felix of the police force and Mr. Collins of the army.

There are no facts to support a contention that both men were in a conspiracy to weaken the Government.
Let’s quote Dev again: “The Executive, under the principle of “anticipated reactions” (Dev’s commas) has to always take into consideration, before taking any policy decision, as to whether the opposition will initiate violence, under cover of their control of State institutions.” The research does not bear out this adumbration.

There are no facts on which this statement can be anchored. We can cite the Integrity Commission, which the opposition denounced because it was not consulted. The opposition accused the President in this instance of violating the Constitution.

The same charge was made against the President in relation to the prolongation of the life of the Ethnic Relations Commission. There was the Ingrid Griffith case at the Guyana Revenue Authority. She acted for two years as Trade Commissioner but was bypassed for confirmation. The position was given to an East Indian former GDF officer.

The obvious example was the bypassing of four GDF officers after Mr. Collins retired. Mr. Dev’s thesis just cannot hold.  

---

---