Too Little, Too late

Aug 07, 2011 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

In response to my article from last week, “Denouement of Verbal Extremism” – which was triggered by the tragedy in Norway – there was a response from Mr Freddie Kissoon (“Denouement of Physical Extremism”) which simply reiterated his old line that I was defending “state oppression and political repression by the government”.
Mr Kissoon offered a summary of the article: “Mr. Dev’s essential point is that when critics of the government use fiery, acidic, confrontational, extremist language to criticize the PPP Government, there is always the potential for the vibrancy of the commentary to galvanize misguided folks to resort to violence against the PPP and by extension its supporters.”
The only caveats I would add would be to substitute “vitriol” for “vibrancy” and that the supporters of the PPP were explicitly blamed for the “evils and sins” (a term he repeats in his response) that their party allegedly committed.
Mr Kissoon’s response to my claim (which the horrible and bloody incident in Norway reignited in my mind) was terse and unrepentant: The PPP government does worse, so what? I am stunned that two years after the initial engagement, during which much political water has flowed under the bridge, Mr Kissoon still misses the point I was making. I have been writing as an opposition figure that had called for “a new political culture.” Apart from placing Indians in the crosshairs (and this is not, based on our recent history, just a figurative expression) how were the narratives of hate and retribution going to change the status quo for the opposition?
A letter in response to Mr Lincoln Lewis, (“For an Effective Opposition”) another extremist polemicist, (“economic genocide” against African-Guyanese”) might help to illustrate my position:
“Let me summarise the points I have been making over the past two years, which ironically, focused on advising the opposition on a strategy that could possibly catapult them into government.
1) I objected to the use of the term “dictatorship” to categorise the present government even as I accepted that there were instances when it could be said to be acting “dictatorially”. This was not just a case of semantic hair-splitting. Since critiques are always strategic, the label enfeebles democratic mobilisation because it stipulates that all the institutions and practices that constitute a dictatorship are already in place. For instance, that as under the PNC which routinely rigged elections, there was no democratic method for removing the regime. This is certainly not the case today. The ultimate sanction for governments acting dictatorially or otherwise not acting in the interest of the people is alive and well in Guyana: the ballot box.
2) With the proportion of Indians in the population plummeting to some 43% during the previous decade (and even lower today), we are now a nation of minorities where each group has the potential of cobbling together a plurality to secure the Presidency or a majority to form a viable government. Rational parties have to moderate their tactics and rhetoric to attract cross-ethnic voting. Some doubt whether Indians will swing away from the PPP, but Dr Rodney demonstrated that if a group were serious about their interests, a significant number would.
3) No one wants to address this reality. The opposition either talks about introducing constitutional innovations (as if by magic) or shrilly screaming “dictatorship”! This could be for two reasons. Firstly it lets them off the hook from doing the serious and tedious groundwork that it takes to garner support (votes) in a democracy. And secondly, but not unrelatedly, it justifies a call to arms to supporters of the opposition, which because of our polarised politics, largely means a racial/ethnic group.
4) The question I have posed to Mr Lewis and the others that are beating the drums of war is whether their encouragement for a frontal attack on the government will lead to a more just society through either shared governance with the PPP, that some in the opposition are calling for, or to the erosion of the latter’s support base that is necessary for their defeat at the polls? I have suggested that such a strategy only reinforces the historic paranoia of the PPP and its supporters about their experiences with forces that have conspired to remove them from office in the past. And they will dig their heels in…
5) I repeat my position that democracy is strengthened when there is a periodic alternation of governments. The responsibility for assuring this latter eventuality lies with the opposition: it is unrealistic to assume that the government will altruistically fold up their tent or open it to the opposition. The opposition has to address the concerns, interests and fears of the majority of the citizens more competently than the incumbent government. They cannot blame the incumbent for retaining that majority if they ignore those concerns, disregard those interests and stoke those fears. I am happy that the organised opposition parties have abjured the extremist rhetoric of Messrs Kissoon and Lewis et al – except for the unfortunate eruption from the WPA and ACDA’s Mr Ogunseye on reading the “riot act”. While I believe it may be a case of too little too late for changing the government at these elections –they should have consistently denounced the extremists – it at least promises the possibility of a more positive politics.

---

---