Everything about the present state of the society in Guyana belies the theory of normalcy

Jun 05, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In recent days a spate of letters, some from government spokespersons and defenders have emerged in the press on the question of power-sharing et al and the governing party’s attitude to same.
In these debates and others on the future of elections and political change there appears to be a pre-occupation with “counting of seats”; “accepting individual offers”; “winners and losers” and other formulations that suggest Guyana is a normal place in a standard season. But everything about the present state of the society in Guyana belies the theory of normalcy.
The evidence over decades also suggests it is not accidental prose. Indeed the PPP’s attitude towards constitutional reform and power-sharing is re-confirmed by a recent statement by its General Secretary and presidential candidate, Donald Ramotar to the effect that the PPP will only form power-sharing relationships with partners it can “trust”.
With their track record this means that the PPP’s conception of power-sharing is for the population and political leaders to either choose to join the PPP, sing its praises, or become an official tick on its flanks as with the fiction of the PPP/Civic.
There is sumptuous evidence of the PPP’s failure to dialogue with honesty in its history.  The PPP government in the early 1960s ignored the New World group’s proposals for “coalition of equality” and “re-organisation of constituencies” (the latter somewhat similar to Rupert Roopnaraine’s past calls for shared governance at the NDC level).
These proposals were given short thrift by a party and government who claimed they were in “office but not in power”. Now that the PPP is in office and in power (for 19 years) where is the resolve for a new political culture?
Through the 1970s and 1980s, all the way up to candidate Ramotar’s comments, the PPP has rejected shared governance in open and subtle ways – ignoring, delaying, bribing other proponents, or setting up imaginary and “safe” voices and groups.
The WPA in particular, in and out of unity talks and alliances with the PPP and others have alternately proposed, publicised, and at times practically pleaded for the PPP to understand the need for national, shared unity and constitutional changes that are not restricted and reduced to cosmetology.
The politics of “winner should not take all” (a phrase credited to former PNC Minister Hubert Jack) of which the PPP once signed on to has since been reduced to embers.
The PPP, like any political party, has a legitimate right to pursue an overall strategy to win sections of the population over to its side and preserve its support.
But amidst a very seriously flawed and disintegrated society with afflictions too numerous to mention, their resolve to maintain the fiction that Guyana is a typical democratic society should be considered in the context of the past and present with an eye to social and political peace of the future.
Undoubtedly, the PPP has had within its ranks far seeing and reasoned advocates of power sharing. Others in their ranks who remain troubled by the PPP historical and contemporary hegemony and disregard for principled unity have largely remained silent (except for episodic noises from more rational PPP voices such as Moses Nagamootoo).
One of the hallmarks of an honest and transparent party and government that define a positive political culture is to seek open national discourse, constitutional change and a government of national unity and reconstruction without preconditions at the moment of power.
But the PPP has done the opposite. It has either, allied for convenience when in opposition and bought support and ignored transformation at the fundamental level once in power. The recent spate of electorally designed visits, including a “massive” development impetus to Berbice, promises to review VAT; and more to come; all testify that the PPP and its government will carry on in the old ways.
In 1979 members of civil society under the umbrella group COMPASS put out several papers on the migration and brain drain from Guyana and offered a number of explanations for the exodus at the time. None are more poignant than the following exhortation:
“In the final analysis, it is our position that the export drain as well as the opt-out drain occurs mostly because of the feeling of Guyanese people that they have lost control of their lives. We feel that a change to dialogue about what affects people must be encouraged and even if the dialogue entails criticisms of one’s organisation or even criticisms of the Government of the day and the party in power, it should be taken not as treasonable and punishable by firing or harassment, but it should be taken within the context of committed Guyanese attempting to impact on the things that affect their lives and the things that matter to them. It is our opinion that in such a changed climate, people will willingly shoulder immense sacrifices for the development of their country.”
This is a reasonably logical path of the basic means for the way forward. In like vein, given the psychological gravity of the crisis and the drastic slippage in all modes of society, it is fitting to recall the phrase (and its title) coined by Clive Thomas in a booklet “Bread and Justice” written in the 1970s. In effect, to quote Thomas, “the promise of bread, cannot be traded for freedom and social justice”.
Nigel Westmaas

---

---