Naipaulian drift 09

Jan 09, 2009 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

Several, not just a few, persons told me over the years; “Freddie, you made your point; ease it on the UG thing.” I acknowledged that and as you can see viewpoints on UG from this corner have dried up over the years. But though it was sound advice, all, not just a few, all of these people, may never understand how I felt about what happened at UG and what I learnt from it. I grew up accepting the model of European imperialism’s brutal exploitation of the colonies they dominated.

Even while at graduate school, I still accepted the core/periphery problematic that dominated the scholarship of anti-imperialist academics. But it was in graduate school, that other theoretical and practical dimensions of power were brought before my eyes.

I saw first-hand how the post-colonial leaders continued what the colonial/imperialist masters had done – they ruled in the interest of themselves and not for the country over which they governed.
More than this, I saw how more patriotic and nationalist were the very capitalist leaders that our Third World dictators said exploited our resources.

In other words, I had an apocalypse. It was revealed to me that the developed capitalist West cared more for its people and were more interested in development that our own rulers who brought us up on a diet of anti-colonialism.

Gone forever from my brain and mind is the acceptance that continuous slow economic growth in the Third World is because of world trade domination by the capitalist West. The post-colonial world’s enemies are its own Macbethian despots. This is the relevance of what I saw at UG.

Many post-colonial leaders are destructive people. With the exception of Desmond Hoyte (and Peter D’Aguiar) whose nationalism had Guyana in mind, all our other presidents have come within the mould of Roman/Shakespearian possessors of power that have devastated their nations. Maybe even the Roman emperors were more nationalistic than what we have produced in this land.

What I saw at UG has permanently killed any doubt in my mind that these rulers can shape a future for their small, poor economies. It was for this reason I had placed so much exposure on the political sarcoma at UG. The location of the Berbice Bridge is another political sarcoma.

What has this theoretical reflection got to do with the caption of this column? I could have used a title like; “My dreams for 2009” or “The things I wish for in 2009.” I chose the headline above because I am not emotional about fundamental changes in 2009.

When a group of people has been in power for sixteen years and not for one single year of exception, you see originality of ideas, visions of a new direction, spirits of soaring to greater heights, dreams of modern pathways, courageous acts of innovations, then what reason exists to hope for the opening up of a brave, new world in Guyana?

My feeling is that the Naipaulian drift that characterizes the use of power by the PPP and Mr. Jagdeo will continue in 2009. Briefly, for those not familiar with what I mean by Naipaulian drift, it refers to the contemptuous attitude of VS Naipaul of many underdeveloped territories that have remained in the same state of stagnation even though Independence came many, many moons ago.

For Naipaul, these rulers are mimic men who are incapable of creativity. They will do nothing to bring about a future for their people. I saw vividly, graphically Naipaul’s cynicism at work at UG. I hope you now understand why I wrote so profusely on UG.

You are criticised by our little despots when you evoke pessimism. They would admonish you to think positively. But why should one do so when the signs are not even vaguely there for you to cling to hope.

Judging from what I saw in 2008, the Naipaulian drift will continue in 2009. After analyzing Mr. Jagdeo’s political deportment and leadership style since 1999, I say most sincerely in my heart that even if I wish to give him the benefit of the doubt in 2009, I cannot. I do not see even an infinitesimal thread suggesting that Mr. Jagdeo will depart from a mode of power exercise in 2009; I see no movement that will open up vistas of phenomenal and fundamental changes that will mark a new dawn for this country that remains one of the world’s tragic lands.

It was an uninspiring, perturbing and depressing 2008 in terms of how power was used in post-colonial Guyana. One cannot point to one basic departure in the authoritarian-drive machine of government from January 1 to December 31, 2008. Why then should we have hope in 2009? Is there a difference between hope and faith?