Bisram supports democratic principles

Jun 06, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Mr. Anand Daljeet queried whether Vishnu Bisram (and other Indians) understands the core principles why we fought the dictatorship from 1968 through 1992 (Kaieteur News May 30).
The answer is a simple yes. The principle was to end the ethnic dictatorship and restore democratic rule – regardless of who wins an election. And my colleagues, such as Dr. Baytoram Ramharack, Vassan Ramracha, Ravi Dev, and myself and those (like Chuck Mohan, Joe Ragnauth, Mahadeo Persaud, etc.) from the support groups of several political parties, are very proud of our achievements.
We gave up income and family life and neglected our education to lead the fight in NY against the dictatorship. Ramharack, Vassan and I took days off from work losing money, cut classes at university, abandoned our families, and hardly slept on some days to organise and lead picketing exercises and prepare newsletters in wee hours of mornings for leafleting.
We take gratification that our efforts helped in the restoration of democracy which is being enjoyed by all including Daljeet, Freddie Kissoon, Malcolm Harripaul, etc. Let me note that Guyana has returned to universal suffrage with one person one vote and free and fair elections. People can eat their own ethnic cuisine and don’t have to worry about facing hefty fines from the police or paying huge bribes, so they can gulp them some alou, dhal, roti, and channa at a wedding or jhandi or Koran Sharief. They can now go to the mandir and masjid and make offerings of mohanbhog and sirni and maleda or perform “Christian service” with offering of mithai.
What we did not fight for was the replacement of an oppressive dictatorship with another tyrannical dictatorship, not brown for black. And a compelling case of a dictatorship existing in Guyana today has not been made. Since 1992, Guyana has been an elected democracy. The US State Department and all major international organizations so describe Guyana. Election observers certified all elections from 1992 to now as free and fair and democratic.
Daljeet describes the democratically elected government as an elected dictatorship. That is a contradiction of terms. Dictators don’t allow elections. Burnham and Hoyte did not.  Dictatorships don’t allow people to call it a dictatorship – such individuals lose their limbs or lives; we know from the Burnham/Hoyte experience. In Guyana, Daljeet, Kissoon and others regularly call the government a dictatorship with no serious consequences – that is called freedom of the press that only exists in a vibrant democracy. Let me note that in several American states, one party always wins elections. American political analysts don’t call them elected dictatorships. In several Southern states, including the one where Dr. David Hinds lives, if I am not mistaken, red necks appeal to Whites to vote for them to keep Blacks out of power. Those states are not called ethnic dictatorships. Fareed Zakaria, whom Freddie Kissoon (incorrectly) uses to criticise the PPP government, calls the USA and Singapore “Illiberal Democracies”. At worst, some aspects of PPP rule might be so described, but why aren’t Kissoon and Daljeet, also not criticising those democracies?
There are lots of things I don’t like about the PPP government and I have critiqued some of them. My role as a pollster restricts my public commentaries. The late David DeCaires gave me useful advice if I want to remain a credible pollster – “Don’t become involved in polemics and diatribes and don’t attack the government or opposition parties”. I have heeded that advice. Where possible, I make public comments being careful to be objective and balanced and not attack anyone.
Daljeet claims that “PPP supporters are supporting marginalisation of Africans”. Can he point to any? Recently Prime Minister, Sam Hinds demonstrated that sugar and bauxite workers were treated equally. Indians feel otherwise: they would like their electricity bills subsidised also, and be given other handouts that other groups receive. I travel to Guyana and conduct opinion surveys with frequency.
With regards to the charge of marginalisation, Indians told me they have been victims of marginalisation under the PPP administration with most of the country’s annual budget going to supporters of the opposition parties.
Daljeet and Kissoon should go and interview Indians and they will find out how marginalised Indians feel. Yet Daljeet claims the PPP is marginalising Africans and favouring Indians.
The PPP can’t marginalise both groups. Something is not right about that claim. I don’t think any group should be marginalised.
Everyone should receive an equitable and fair distribution of the patrimony of the state and everyone should be afforded an opportunity to partake in decision making. The PPP claims that it has included all ethnic groups in its governance.
It points to an African Prime Minister and almost half of the cabinet being non-Indians.  It cites support among Amerindians and Africans that give it 55% of support in the country where Indians account for 43% of the population.
Daljeet claimed that Burnham marginalised Africans. That may be so towards the end of his dictatorship – after he had wrecked the entire economy and social structure and everyone excepting his cohorts was marginalised. But who did the money from Gaibank, the Co-ops, KSI, the armed and police forces, etc. go to? Indians were not recipients.
It is untruthful to say I am opposed to Ogunseye and Hinds holding a peaceful demonstration. They can have all the peaceful demonstrations they want. That is their right and I will defend that right. But it is not their right to reject the outcome of a free and fair democratic election. I am surprised Daljeet agrees with their position to reject the outcome of a democratic election.
As reported in the media, Ogunseye has advocated for a rejection of the outcome of a democratic election if it is not won by Africans (PNC) and the PNC has disassociated from that statement. Hinds endorses it. What then is the purpose of the election?
You might as well not have the election. And need I remind Daljeet what happened in post election rallies – Indians were targeted for violence, robberies, rape, etc. since the 1960s. In the context of our violent post-elections history, what does “there will be no Guyana” suggest?
With regards to references to WPA politics of ethnic inclusion, Daljeet’s premises are flawed. The launching of the WPA was all about the concern that Burnham was not doing enough for the Africans and Indians – not the marginalisation of Indians alone. It should also be noted that there was no co-leader when Dr. Rodney was alive. And at any rate, Indians would tell you that Dr. Roopnaraine was not Indian conscious and did not advocate for Indian interests. It was IPRA under Moses Bhagwan that proposed Indians were politically excluded. Roopnaraine never claimed to represent Indians unlike Rodney and Bro. Eusi Kwayana who were never shy about their ethnic identity and advocacy of African interests.
I wish to advise Daljeet that in none of my writings have I ever advocated any principles that are contrary to democracy. And Daljeet has not shown how any of my writings are harmful. On the contrary, people see my writings as lucid and very helpful to consolidating democratic principles. I don’t know what sadness Daljeet is referring to for which he feels I should be reprimanded. He does not say.
But I do know it is quite sad when someone who taught at a university equates free and fair election with a dictatorship and who feels that a democratic election should be thrown out the window.  Unless we are prepared to accept the outcome of elections, Guyana will not change.
Vishnu Bisram

---

---