This discourse has run its course

Nov 06, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Is it not passing strange that someone who only a few months ago was protesting his innocence under the axe is today invoking the Inquisition against others?
“He (Jeffrey) is also fortunate that I am not a student of his at the institution to which he fled…or I would have led a successful revolt against him at the University of Guyana, both as a lecturer and as a defunct politician, who should not be allowed to use our premier academic institution to bamboozle and distort the young minds of our nation” (Kaieteur News 03/11/01; Chronicle 4/11/10), “The evidence of performance is clear in Linden”.
That aside, it is good to see that Mr. Phillip G. Bynoe has relinquished all pretence of intellectualism and has now simply presented us with the traditional posture of the ruling political establishment that he supports.
Put simply, their position is that all those who are now clamouring for shared governance are hypocrites who are simply after the political office that they cannot win at the ballot box.
He puts it this way: “it was academics like Jeffrey and others who not only created the 1980 Constitution which entrenched the “West Minster” [sic] style government…So how am I to judge you when you now tell me and the country that this same constitution is the cause of all our problems in Guyana; …. [w]hen you, personally, along with the people who now make up the current opposition, in fact conceived it, wrote it, advocated it, voted for it and promulgated it?”
Mr. Bynoe, an independent leader would not be required to “judge” me. Indeed, he would be extremely foolhardy to simply accept what I, the opposition, the people in government or anyone who could be considered self-interested have to say on this matter.
S/he would be required to make her/his own independent analysis of our current ethnic disassociation and underdevelopment and/or to consult independent authorities.
What s/he should not do, as you seem inclined to, is to conclude that since some apparently self-interested people in the opposition hold a position, that view is, ipso facto, invalid. Of course, understandably, as a party supporter, one is expected to “carry the line.”
But, Mr. Bynoe, you also need to understand that human development is rooted in the fact that we are able to confront our environment with the capacity to adapt to and change it.
So it does not matter what conclusion I reach today; confronted by new awareness and realities, I may need to change my position. Claims of bias, by leaders such as you, based on the fact that someone “conceived it, wrote it, advocated it, voted for it and promulgated it,” only become sensible after a position has been objectively refuted. Matters not what we create, rationality allows us to judge its utility and to keep or discard it.
Finally we need to note that the Westminster “winner takes all” system, which is now considered unacceptable, was not created by the 1980 or later constitutions but was adopted from the British and was embedded in our independence constitution.
The usual quarrel with the 1980 and later constitutions has mainly to do with the nature of presidential powers.
Never mind the belated plea of innocence, Mr. Bynoe’s political affiliations and activities are too well known to warrant recounting.
However, on both the 1980 Constitution and the Westminster system I have some things to say in refutation of some of what Mr. Bynoe said about my involvement.
For example, when in 1973/74 the late Forbes Burnham initiated the process of constitutional reform, I was still resident in England with no connection to the PNC and in 1984, I wrote, among other things, the following in relation to the 1980 Constitution: “It is almost impossible to successfully impeach modern Presidents, but what are particularly alarming are the President’s immunities and the provisions which make it possible for a President, guilty of gross misconduct, to escape all punishment.” (Baber and Jeffrey -1985 – “Guyana: Politics, Economic and Society,” Frances Pinter, London)
Although I have long recognised that there was something wrong with our system of government, I have been a reluctant convert to shared governance because of my fear of creating a monolithic government with an all but non-existent opposition. In 2002, in a tract called “Establishing Normal Politics in Guyana,” which was widely publicised, I stated: “For at least half a century normal politics has not existed in Guyana. …. Normal politics exists where political interplay takes place according to the rules and traditions of established democracies and where political parties win and hold power without reference to existing fractures in the society. … However, very importantly, normal politics does not exist where (for whatever reason) political competition is absent. Political competition only exists where it is perceived that the incumbent can be defeated. The establishment of a workable political system is critical to our development. In my view, power sharing is the less desirable alternative at this stage. However, if, as a result of negligence or impracticability, normal politics is not urgently established power sharing remains an alternative.
To establish normal politics requires a paradigmatic shift in our political thinking. It will not be easy to convince persons seasoned in the extant political culture of the necessity for change.” (For a full presentation see “Did make submissions on democracy in a multiethnic society during ministerial tenure:” SN: 18/06/09).
The coming into existence of the AFC and the possible mobilisation of the indigenous people towards becoming a group for themselves, has eased but not eliminated that concern.
Mr. Bynoe seems to have taken umbrage at my use of ‘sic.’ It was (and is again above) used to simply indicate to the reader my recognition of a problem in, while remaining faithful to, the original text. It could not be an attempt at one-upmanship since we all make these kinds of mistakes.
Mr. Editor, the fact that Mr. Bynoe spent nearly half of his presentation abusing me and the remainder praising himself, is a clear indication that this discourse has run its course.
Henry B. Jeffrey

---

---