In answer to that question

May 06, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The question often been asked of me is why are more East Indian Guyanese not speaking out against the wrongs that are being committed by the ruling PPP administration. Many years ago, a similar question was asked: why more African-Guyanese did not come out against the twenty-eight year-old PNC dictatorship which ruined Guyana?
These answers to the lack of opposition to the ruling PPP/C are to be found in history, in philosophy and without question in the existential circumstances that exist in Guyana today.
On the one hand, the standard of living that all Guyanese are now enjoying is far superior to what was enjoyed during the rule of the PNC. Times are definitely better.
However difficult it may be at the moment, it cannot be compared to the days when the shelves of supermarkets were bare, when there were long lines for basic commodities and when wages could not sustain the population.
Times are freer. Things may not be the best, but at least those who wish to condemn the government do not have to fear that when they are leaving some political meeting, goons would set upon them.
They do not have to fear that when they meet their friends who may have ties with the opposition, that they would be traced by the Special Squad; they do not have to worry whether their names will be on the next list of those to be retrenched.
They do not have to worry that they may not have a medium to vent their opinions.
In the face of the significant advances in the basic necessities of life: food, clothing, housing and in freedom of the press etc, opposition is repressed and a false consciousness develops, one that is more materialistic and less ideological, thus rendering sterile mass-based opposition to the existing status quo. Writers such as Herbert Marcuse had long developed on this theme.
The second reason for the absence of criticism has to do with the post-1997 history of Guyana. Even if there were those who wished to stand up to the ruling PPP administration and to denounce the mediocrity and incompetence of the government, they are reminded of the absence of alternatives.
They are equally mindful of the developments in Guyana in the post-1997 period when politics and criminality converged in one of the most tragic periods in our history.
After what took place in Guyana following the 1997 elections, after the crime wave which came after the 2001 elections, after the protests, the looting, the burnings and the beatings, there is bound to be an attitude of resistance by supporters of the government towards replacing the incumbent government.
But perhaps the most important reason why there is an absence of any tangible opposition is to be found in the history of social change.
The masses do not lead social change; they merely lend their numbers to that process.
Throughout history, the leadership of mass movements has always originated from the middle class. This leadership has however come mainly from a specific sector of that class which is the intellectual class along with others from the professional class.
In Guyana, the intellectual class led and the professional class offered support in the struggles against Burnham.
The professional class, however, soon drifted away under extreme pressure applied; they migrated or simply became silent, leaving the intellectual class to shoulder the responsibility of opposition to the then dictatorship.
The intellectual class in Guyana today is a far different class. It is a compliant class and cannot be expected to provide the leadership necessary to oppose the government within a democratic framework. A great many of the members of the professional class support the Alliance For Change as they had supported the Working People’s Alliance before. But the Alliance For Change is a party without an ideology and therefore cannot develop into an instrument of social change because the lack of a defining idea reduces its internal cohesiveness.
The final factor which is responsible for the lack of opposition towards the PPP is the new global framework which places emphasis on the change through a democratic framework. The only change that the United States of America, and the other western powers, is going to accept is change through the ballot box.
This much was reemphasized at the last Summit of the Americas held in Trinidad where President Obama reiterated that the USA will only recognize democratically elected governments. Change therefore has to come about through elections and we all know that when it comes to elections, the PPP does its footwork and is a force to be reckoned with.

---

---