Mr. Bynoe lacks a sufficiently nuanced understanding of the subject upon which he seeks to comment

Oct 31, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I ended my previous presentation (“A sympathetic interpretation of Mr. Bynoe’s position:” Kaieteur News, 23/10/10) in this discourse with Mr. Phillip Bynoe stating that: “A sympathetic interpretation of Mr. Bynoe’s position would be that he does not fully appreciate the implications of what he has said.” After considering his response (“Phillip Bynoe responds to Henry Jeffrey:” (Kaieteur News: 26/10/10), which is replete with conceptual and procedural difficulties, I am now convinced that he lacks a sufficiently nuanced understanding of the subject upon which he seeks to comment.
Before proceeding, however, let me say this. Our tradition has been one of people leaving political parties and joining or being associated with others (yours truly, for example) and even at the height of the PNC being accused of racism, election manipulation, corruption, etc., persons were leaving the PPP and joining it. It is Mr. Bynoe’s democratic right to support any political party he wishes for whatever reason he wishes. However, when he seeks a public forum for his ideas, they should be rigorously tested.
Now to recap: I stated that when Mr. Philip Bynoe (“All Guyana should pause and reflect on what this democracy is all about:” (Kaieteur News: 21/10/10) claimed that PNC and PPP governments was/is respectively pro-Black and pro-Indian he was saying that “both the PNC and PPP regimes were/are racist in the sense that they ran/run the state ‘pro’ (for or in favour of) one racial group.” In response Mr. Bynoe said I misinterpreted him and proceeded to tell us both what he meant and did not mean.
“I did not mean,” he told us, “to say that the PNC governed for 28 years solely in favour of blacks to the exclusion of Indians or that the PPP governed for 18 years solely in favour of Indians (my emphasis) to the exclusion of blacks.” Please note that Mr. Bynoe is making the word “favour” conditional and by way of this conceptual contortion he constructs a greater difficulty for himself. What are we to make of “solely in favour:” How is it operationalised?
In any case, since “solely in favour” still implies levels of bias and discrimination it does little to mitigate my concern that by supporting and also wishing for a continuation of a government he claims is pro-Indian, Mr. Bynoe is accepting the inequitable allocation of the nation’s resources.
If the above is what Mr. Bynoe did not mean, what then did he mean? When he spoke of the PNC and PPP/C being pro-Black and pro-Indian: “What I meant to say was over 95% of its votes…. went to the PNC from black people and more than 95% of its votes that went to the PPP were from Indians.” To define a government as “pro” a section of society because the political party from which it emanated received most of its support form that section of society is a strange use of language, which, even if “pro” is simply intended as some kind of a synonym for “majority,” still leaves us with a problem.
Though governments tend to disavow such actions, they usually favour their constituency and when constituencies are permanently constituted as has been and still remains the case in Guyana, the favour consistently goes to one group, and herein lies one of the reasons for questioning the appropriateness of a Westminster system in our context.
Indeed, that system has been rejected by the major opposition party and ACDA (the most representative Afro-Guyanese NGO) as the basis for legitimate government in Guyana, and others and I have written hundreds of column inches in the popular press outlining the various reasons why our Westminster-type system needs to change.
However, as if oblivious to all of this, Mr. Bynoe, though observing that: Guyana is “A society that is still generally divided along ethnic lines and where elections are still regarded as ethnic accounting,” regales us with an extrapolation of that system and then suggests that I may wish to comment upon it!
By simply Googling he will be inundated by the many contributions which address Guyana and the Westminster system.
Nevertheless, Mr. Bynoe raised an important issue, which, for the record, we need to address.
He appeared to suggest that once you enter an election under a given system, even if you disagree with that system, you are obliged to follow its rules, and he proceeded as follows: “During the 28 years when the PPP were in opposition, they effectively, relentlessly and on a daily basis accepted the responsibilities imposed upon them as so-called losers of many elections under the West Minster (sic) style democracy and represented vigorously the interests of their constituents (those who voted for them). … Losing does not mean that the loser suddenly becomes unpatriotic and consistently seeks only to oppose, expose and depose whatever the consequences for the country.”
In 1985 I wrote what was even then well known: “Production levels in election years are good indicators of how the PPP has continued to affect the economy.
The 280,000 tons of sugar produced in the election year of 1973 was the second lowest output for that decade, only better than the 253,000 tons produced in 1977, when the GAWU called a strike for profit sharing, which the government claimed was a political strike intended to remove it from office” (Baber and Jeffrey, “Guyana: Politics, Economics and Society” Frances Pinter, London)
Was this what Mr. Bynoe had in mind when he outlined the responsibilities of winners, losers and patriots?
The truth of the matter is that the PPP had every right to attempt to undermine a government it believed to be illegitimate and no constitutional system can possibly forestall such processes.
What is more to the point is that Dr. Jagan and the PPP did what any sensible group would do: they utilized every opportunity, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary, to attempt to achieve their goal.
That is why legitimacy can only properly flow from a consensual constitutional framework.
If Mr. Bynoe is to be believed, the situation in Linden is bleak, and one pictures him scurrying around to all and sundry for bits and pieces to help his community. “… people in Linden and Region Ten are hurting, people need help. …
To engage in an academic debate now as to who and what is responsible for this state of affairs in Linden and Region Ten cannot garner help for people now! Cannot lessen malnutrition among children in Linden now!
Cannot alleviate what we know to be serious suffering now!”
But much is wrong with Mr. Bynoe’s explanation of the sad situation he has presented. For example, he recognises the existence of our Westminster system that allows the party that wins the elections the total control of government and the responsibility of developing all communities equitably, but amazingly proceeds to blame opposition’s ineffectiveness in addressing the ails of his community!
This is like claiming that the PPP’s ineffectiveness in opposition led to the local and general underdevelopments which took place under the PNC regime.
However, although he does so implicitly, to explicitly accept government’s responsibility would lead Mr. Bynoe into the most alarming contradiction of supporting the continuance of a government that is hurting the very people he claims to cares so much about!
It might well be that the opposition parties in Linden have been derelict in their responsibilities to the community, but the cry of opposition ineffectiveness is not unusual when political parties are out of power for long periods of time.
Notwithstanding the idyllic picture Mr. Bynoe sought to paint of Dr. Jagan in opposition, many of his supporters left for other parties – some even forming their own – complaining of PPP ineffectiveness.
Mr. Bynoe, I have no doubt that all of us want to live together in peace and prosperity.
But take the advice of “patwa (that) come outta trench:” we will not do so, regardless of what developments take place, until we are able to institutionalize a governance framework in which justice is not only done but also seen and believed to be done.
Henry B. Jeffrey

---

---