For an Effective Opposition

Jan 10, 2010 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

I refer to the letter by Mr Lincoln Lewis, “Rights and the rule of law are the foundation of every modern society” of Jan 4th and wonder if he had actually bothered to read the articles of mine that he claims are redolent of my focus on “racial dominance”. Let me summarise the points I have been making over the past two years, which ironically, focused on advising the opposition on a strategy that could possibly catapult then into government.
1) I objected to the use of the term “dictatorship” to categorise the present government even as I accepted that there were instances when it could be said to be acting “dictatorially”. This was not just a case of semantic hair-splitting. Since critiques are always strategic, the label enfeebles democratic mobilisation because it stipulates that all the institutions and practices that constitute a dictatorship are already in place. For instance, as under the PNC which routinely rigged elections, that there was no democratic method for removing the regime. This is certainly not the case today. The ultimate sanction for governments acting dictatorially or otherwise not acting in the interest of the people is alive and well in Guyana: the ballot box.
2) There is general acceptance that our elections are free and fair. Before the last elections, the opposition, (including myself) had expressed concerns about the electoral list. Since then, a new “house-to-house” registration has been conducted and the new list will soon be tested.
3) In the past, the ethnic pattern of voting and the absolute majority of Indians in the population had produced what I called an “Ethnic Security Dilemma for Africans”. If the latter group went along with the majoritarian rules of the game, they would be locked out of the Executive in perpetuity. In this case, even with “democratic” institutions in place, there could exist a “tyranny of the majority”. Hence our calls for Shared Governance for the near term and more stable structures, such as federalism etc, in the longer term.
4) However, with the proportion of the Indians in the population plummeting to some 43% during the last decade, we are now a nation of minorities where each group has the potential of cobbling together a plurality to secure the Presidency or a majority to form a viable government. Rational parties have to moderate their tactics and rhetoric to attract cross-ethnic voting. Some doubt whether Indians will swing away from the PPP but Dr Rodney demonstrated that if a group were serious about their interests, a significant number would.
5) No one wants to address this reality. The opposition either talks about introducing constitutional innovations (as if by magic) or shrilly scream “dictatorship”. This could be for two reasons. Firstly, it lets them off the hook from doing the serious and tedious groundwork that it takes to garner support (votes) in a democracy. And secondly, but not unrelatedly, it justifies a call to arms to supporters of the opposition, which because of our polarised politics largely means a racial/ethnic group.
6) Mr Lewis admirably decries “conflicts around race” when it is used “as a wedge to perpetuate dominance/intolerance of one group over/to other(s)” . He approves, however when, as “our recent history” has shown, it is used “to advance the representation and defence of a group for its just share in society.” The latter strategy is justified by the alleged former condition. And this is where we part ways because we have moved from the realm of theory at this point, to the realm of political action where the “conflicts around race” in our country have burst into mind-numbing violence around race over the past decades.
7) The question I have posed to Mr Lewis and the others that are beating the drums of war is whether their encouragement for a frontal attack on the government will lead to a more just society through either shared governance with the PPP, that some in the opposition are calling for, or to the erosion of the latter’s support base that is necessary for their defeat at the polls. I have suggested that such a strategy only reinforces the historic paranoia of the PPP and its supporters about their experiences with forces that have conspired to remove them from office in the past. And they will dig their heels in.
8) Mr Lewis suggests that “the treatment to an ailment has to be based on the gravity of the illness” but surely he does not mean that the efficacy of a treatment is improved only by ratcheting up the dosage of ineffective medicine. Maybe we could try another medicine? I have suggested that in our society, the strategy of confrontation and conflict will almost inevitably segue into violence because of certain meta-narratives that we have inherited and are nourished by rhetoric such as Mr Lewis’ and Mr Kissoon’s.
9) Mr Lewis’ assertion: “Africans are here to stay. They are not going anywhere. Neither will they live on their knees or accept oppression,” is right out of the narrative of revolutionary romance. It powerfully evokes the stark choices facing the slave – either remaining “on their knees” or rising up in revolution, to eternal emancipation and freedom. Apart from the inappropriateness of the strategy for our present circumstances as argued above, I have also suggested that its ends might have always been incoherent and utopian. Where has it ever delivered its millenarian promises? In the struggle against the PNC, to which Mr Lewis alludes, was it the “uprising” that changed the regime or the lobbying after the serendipitous fall of the USSR?
10) I will leave Mr Lewis’ personal attacks against, and elision of, my record of official opposition to the present regime between 2000 and 2006 for another day. I repeat my position that democracy is strengthened when there is a periodic alternation of governments. The responsibility for assuring this latter eventuality lies with the opposition: it is unrealistic to assume that the government will altruistically fold up their tent or open it to the opposition. The opposition has to address the concerns, interests and fears of the majority of the citizens more competently than the incumbent government. They cannot blame the incumbent for retaining that majority if they ignore those concerns, disregard those interests and stoke those fears.
11) And they certainly cannot say that the PPP does a better job of getting their supporters to the polls as an explanation for their defeat. Whose fault is that?

---

---