Henry Jeffrey, V.S. Naipaul and a Guyanese “shoemaker”

Jan 20, 2011 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

Dr. Henry Jeffrey, who served in the PPP Government for seventeen years since 1992, has taken umbrage to my criticism of his contestation that a member of an organization has a loyalty to it and therefore is morally obliged not to criticize it publicly (see his long KN letter of Jan 18). There is a lot of conceptual confusion in Jeffrey’s wide-ranging reply to me.
When I use the word “oligarchy” to describe a government or a political party, I am not referring to the sociological origins of the term but to its political context. By oligarchy I mean dictatorship. After the descent of Latin America into oligarchic rule in early 20th century, political analysts have used the term to mean a certain dictatorial style in the exercise of power.
I have no interest in the sociological meaning of the concept since my commentaries on Guyana are focused on the crude, one-man display of naked power hence the term oligarchic.
Jeffrey’s letter is both perturbing in the context of Guyana and sad in the understanding of the purpose of human existence. Let us deal with the latter first. Using the (sociological) typology of oligarchic structures, Jeffrey tells us that our obligation to abide by the decisions of oligarchically shaped organizations “has gone beyond moral convenience and is now in the realm of custom and law.”
Be that as it may, where does that leave individual action? Maybe we can resort to the great Jean Paul Sartre to educate Jeffrey. The following quote is taken from Franz Marek’s “Philosophy of World Revolution,” International Publishers, New York. (page 54). Marek quotes from Sartre, “Critique of Dialectical Reason.”
“The point is to affirm the specific character of the human act which holds fast to its resolve while traversing the social scene and which on the basis of given conditions transform the world.
Within a certain field of possibilities man steps outside this historical and social limitations by what he succeeds in making what has been made of him” (end of quote). I am sure Jeffrey would have read Sartre at one time in his life and would know that Sartre’s great contribution Marxist philosophy was in the area of the dialectics in social life.
Sartre argued, contrary to Marxism-Leninism, that the individual could go beyond his/her own social and historical limitations.
Those familiar with Sartre’s contribution to existentialism would know that he refers to this as “The Project” and it is the process whereby we give meaning to our existence (incidentally, I stole that wonderful book when I worked as a sixteen year old youth at the Michael Forde Book Store. I did not steal it from the National Library as a certain PPP presidential candidate would like to think. I still have it and treasure it)
What has all of this got to do with Jeffrey’s iron law of oligarchic structures in modern organizations? We come into the world to change it. It was Marx who wrote; “The philosophers have interpreted the world, the point is to change it.”
Who says we must be subservient to tradition? There are countless examples in history where the iron laws of oligarchically defined organizations were defied. But I will offer Jeffrey a few examples from his and my country.
In the Working People’s Alliance, some of us, including this columnist, spoke out publicly against party’s decisions and were never disciplined or expelled. Moses ‘Nagamootoo did just that a few years ago and for which he must be admired. There is Michael Carrington from the Alliance for Change (AFC)
After the AFC proclaimed that it will not have an election coalition with the PNC, Carrington, (a member of the AFC’s executive) told a public symposium at the WPA head office, covered by the media, that he does not accept that decision and will fight against it in the AFC.
Some in the AFC ridiculed Carrington and called him a shoemaker (that is his occupation) but Carrington has pressed on. He has not been expelled and he has not resigned.
When you read Jeffrey’s voluminous letter you conjure up the memories of the young V.S. Naipaul dismissing the Caribbean as a place that will never create history. People like Jeffrey and Ralph Ramkarran that Jeffrey endorses could have changed history by speaking up against dictatorship in the PPP. Jeffrey is an unmoved individual.
He concludes his missive by saying he has no intention of discussing governmental business in the press (referring to his seven years as a Minister). He should tell the Guyanese people the truth. He was elected and paid by them.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News