Who to deconstruct?

May 22, 2011 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

What I have found interesting in the responses to my articles on Mr Ogunseye’s “riot act” speech is the refusal to place any responsibility on the opposition for our present problems.  I do not believe that democracy is possible in any polity unless there is an effective and viable opposition.
I believe that human nature ensures that any party in government knowing it cannot be voted out, will abuse its power. It is the responsibility of each “side” within a democracy, to ensure that it presents itself to the electorate as an “electable” alternative to the other. As a member of the opposition between 2001 and 2006, I have focused on building an effective opposition.
To be “electable” the political parties have to understand the nature of their electorate. Studies have shown that the general populace make their voting decision based on simple “heuristics” or cognitive shortcuts. In Guyana, I have proposed that apart from the normal concerns of economics and crime etc, our populace has two “ethnic security dilemmas” that dominate their thinking. The two major parties, separately grounded in their ethnic blocs, I thought, would see the value of reaching across the ethnic divide since each does not constitute an absolute majority. The PPP has certainly been wooing the Amerindian and African blocs.
My frustration is that the opposition, located in the African/Mixed bloc, has consistently refused not only to craft and execute a program that addresses the Indian Security Dilemma, but actually exacerbates that dilemma with its rhetoric and actions. It leaves disgruntled Indians with no acceptable alternative.  And when I point this out, most recently after Mr Ogunseye’s “kith and kin” evocation of the worse fears of Indians, my old friend Malcolm Harripaul, now supporting the PNC, accuses me of “going after African activists (and) ignoring the real culprits – Indian elected PPP”.
Malcolm appears to believe that a continuous stream of invective directed at the PPP will cause Indians to vote for the opposition without the latter having worked consistently over the years to create a platform that addresses their concerns. I respectfully disagree. And his avowal of Brigadier Granger’s position – which I have not heard from the horse’s mouth, so to speak – is not only at variance from the official PNC’s position as adumbrated by Sherwood Lowe, but comes rather late in the day not to appear opportunistic.
In like manner, Malcolm gives total credit to the PPP for “the racial brainwashing of Indians” – for them not supporting the opposition. As if the truculence of the opposition between 1992 to 1997; the riots of 1998; the mass killings, mayhem and robberies between 2001-2008 on which they either equivocated, facilitated or excused as ‘resistance” has nothing to do with Indians’ frame of mind.
Malcolm repeats that Indian intellectuals have to “deconstruct” the PPP, even though I asked to what end. In my estimation, no one wants “deconstruction” in an instrumental sense – to direct the opposition in constructive action – but simply as an expressive outburst to maybe make some feel good. Back in 2008, the matter was ventilated for months as the debate raged on whether the PPP was a “dictatorship” or not.
So while everyone weighed in – including Malcolm, no one accepted that a debate about the ontological condition of the PPP regime was beside the point when regime change through the ballot box was still available. So talk about protests and riots against “the dictatorship” raged, while organising on the ground – not only in the Indian constituency but in the African – remained moribund. Not to mention exacerbating Indians’ fears. And this is where it remains to this day. So a host of activists are contented that the PPP has been dubbed a “dictatorship”. How many votes has this earned them?
I hear a lot of storm and thunder about corruption in the PPP regime. So we are going to solve the problem with “power sharing”? Well this was tried most recently in Kenya: all it did was double the number of officials that had to be bribed. I have been writing about the need to amend the unbridled, neo-liberal free-marketism that was imposed by the IMF/World Bank which ensconces greed at the centre of all economic activity. The term “crony capitalism” is a tautology in this world view. Unless a system that incorporates a wider social responsibility is introduced, we are guaranteed more of the same – from whoever is in power. But “ideology” is a taboo word by the opposition. I guess only cussing out “the thieves” makes us feel better.
Three years ago, I advised: There is no alternative to all groups and their representatives working together to craft a system that can address our deep-seated fears. We cannot wish away the PPP, which, in addition to their historical ideology that predisposes them to authoritarian behaviour, has been pushed further down that path by opposition forces violently challenging their legitimacy. But the PPP is not monolithic. With an opposition that addresses the fears of both the PPP and their Indian support, core moderate elements that are amenable to a reworking of the political landscape will be strengthened. Strident and incessant “‘buse down” will not solve anything.
Quo Vadis?

---

---