Allegations cannot become truth

Jan 26, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Mr. Freddie Kissoon may well run but he cannot escape exposure of the shortcomings of his method and analysis by subterfuge or, as in the current case, resort to a specious offer of choice. (“Which do you prefer: Stealing books or serving a dictatorship?” KN: 24/01/11).
His latest effort is a return to his usual level of ad hominem abuse, old talk and political gossip (“Someone recently remarked about Jeffrey:” “I wonder what Navin Chandarpal would say …”, etc.) , but let us see how he fares on even his ‘home’ ground.
In his previous article (‘Henry Jeffrey, V.S. Naipaul and a Guyanese “shoemaker:”’ KN: 20/01/11) Mr. Kissoon admitted that he stole a book from the Michael Ford Bookstore at Freedom House and said that: “Jeffrey dubs that action unlawful. I am sure in the conventional sense it is.”
So how could I have ‘dubbed’ as unlawful what he admitted was unlawful? But then he asked: “by what epistemological logic can we exclude participation in a government that for seventeen years has committed some pretty nasty violations not only of the laws but the constitution and moral codes of the country?”
Firstly, as a self-proclaimed student of existentialism, Mr. Kissoon must have recognised another option than the two (stealing book or serving a dictatorship) he presented to his readers: that of neither stealing books nor working for a dictatorship.
Secondly, it was he, not I, who raised the matter of his stealing books, and regardless of what the government or the likes of me are doing, it is absurd for Mr. Kissoon to be seeking public sympathy for stealing of other peoples’ property. After all, countless others have been as poor, if not poorer than he, and have not resorted to theft.
Thirdly, in answer to his question “… by what logic can we exclude participation in a government that for seventeen years has committed some pretty nasty violations not only of the laws but the constitution and moral codes of the country?” – by the simple logic that what you have against the government are allegations, not admissions or proof that it has committed unlawful acts.
No amount of Jacques Derrida can convert an allegation into a truth. Indeed, what my little knowledge of Derrida suggests is that extrapolations from a concept must contain elements of it. Mr. Kissoon, should therefore be cautious in his use of the concepts that he has derived from such his allegations. This of course poses a problem for the radical propagandist, as people are more easily swayed by facts.
Much of the current discussion has been about my contention that: “Change is brought about by a dialectical interplay of various internal and external forces and is not usually entirely the result of outsider activism.”
Yet, Mr. Kissoon fusses that I am presently making radical noises but was prepared to continue to work with President Bharrat Jagdeo who, according to him, is “stricken with the Burnham syndrome” if the terms of employment were acceptable to me.
Mr. Kissoon, I am aware
that you will not be uncomfortable with this, but we need to go beyond the superficiality of personality discourses to a systemic level of analysis and you will recognise that Mr. Jagdeo is only the current expression of a condition that has been with us for more than sixty years.
The fact is that many of us, whether in government or not, exhibit dictatorial tendencies.
In my view the fault is not mainly with the person but with the institutional checks and balances that our bi-communal society make difficult to institutionalize. Put many of us in Mr. Jagdeo’s position (in which the PPP/C appears virtually certain win every election) and I suspect that our behaviour would leave as much, if not more, to be desired!
As I have said many times in my letters, a government without an operational bottom line is like a commercial state enterprise, the survival of which does not depend solely on its making profit.
All kinds of incompetence, inefficiencies, extravagances, etc. seep in.
In my view, removing Mr. Jagdeo without radically changing the system, will provide no certainty of a different outcome.
However, those who want to place their faith in the so-called ‘good man’ may do so!
The position I hold now is the same one I held, spoke and wrote about when I was in government. It is that radical governmental institutional change is required if Guyana is ever to fulfill its potential. But one’s approach is likely to differ depending on whether one is seeking to achieve an objective from the inside or outside of an organisation.
Indeed, I am not convinced that Mr. Kissoon has had any more success in achieving change from the outside than I from the inside.
Mr. Kissoon’s claim that I have “scandalized” him in the press must have brought tears to the eyes of many!
As my final contribution to this discourse, I encourage Mr. Kissoon to drop “epistemological logic,”  “Jacques Derrida” and the like and to restrict himself to the smattering of facts, opinionated personalisations and general exaggerations that are so well-liked and which will be improved if they are properly constructed and logically held together.
Henry B Jeffrey

---

---