Will Granger commit ideological betrayal today?

Aug 20, 2016 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

There is no such thing as a head of state that is divorced from political ideologies and historical beliefs. If President Granger believes there is such an approach to governing a country, he is wrong. There is no need to define ideology. It comprises a belief system and core principles. Two powerful philosophers who have different historical perspectives agreed on one thing – ideology is essentially negative.
Karl Marx in “The German Ideology,” referred to ideology as false consciousness. When you examine what Marx meant, then his definition has multiple elements of validity. It is outside the scope of a newspaper column to explain what Marx meant. He was essentially saying that one’s thought process is shaped by class position, therefore, you can embrace values that have no objective basis in life. This is a phenomenal adumbration that no anti-Marxist philosopher can devastate.
Karl Popper, who wrote a devastating two volume critique of certain philosophers, including Marx (see “The Open Society and Its Enemies”) found ideology to be negative and dangerous, because it discovers what is undiscoverable – philosophical truths. It was a biting irony that Popper accused Marx of ideological truths when Marx said that ideology is a fiction in one’s mind that appears as fact. Both Marx and Popper were right and wrong. It depends how you define ideology and how historically grounded its philosophical contents are.
The brilliant 20th century Italian philosopher, Antonio Gramsci (who has to be one of the favourite philosophers of every scholar or thinker who accepts Marxism) tried to meet Popper and Marx halfway (Gramsci was executed by Mussolini before Popper’s book was published). Gramsci argued that each ideology of each class contains elements of objective reality. This is where ideology achieves acceptability in the study of politics. Ideology then can be said to be a system of thoughts and ideas, some of which can be proven wrong, some of which are historically valid and some of which, if accepted remain a guiding post. Here is where President Granger comes in.
Mr. Granger did a first degree in history and has edited a book titled, “Themes in African Guyanese History.” Mr. Granger would have a pattern of thoughts and ideas about his country’s historical evolution. He wrote about his country’s history. One fundamental thread of Guyana’s history is slavery. In 1823, there occurred the largest slave rebellion in the Caribbean. The arrested revolutionaries were tortured, brutalized and killed at what is now Parade Ground.
President Jagdeo agreed for the erection of a monument at that site named the 1823 Slave Rebellion Monument. The sod was turned at the site. Circumstances intervened and the Jagdeo Government found other uses for the Parade Ground. The Ramotar Government came to power and switched the site to the seawall. As a reaction to this, several African rights groups, including the multi-racial, Rodneyite formation, People’s Parliament, formed an organization named, Coalition for the 1823 Monument For Parade Ground. It found sympathy from many established organizations including the PNC under the leadership of Mr. Granger, the AFC, ACDA and the Georgetown City Council.
This columnist led off the negotiations with Mayor Green for the City Council’s permit to erect the monument there. He agreed and the necessary legal papers were drawn up. The protesting group got African Guyanese to boycott the official opening of the monument at the seawall road opposite Camp Ayanganna. This year marks the 193rd anniversary of the uprising and President Granger will go to the monument today to preside over the ceremony. In the context of ideology, President Granger is committing a grave political mistake.
In the context of ideology, the place for the monument is Parade Ground. Granger as an historian and political leader accepted that historical justification. How can he then go to the seawall? If he does that then the following can be advanced as arguments against him. First, he will justify the placing of the moment by the PPP Government there. Secondly by so doing, he acknowledges that the site is appropriate. Thirdly, he has committed political volte face which will harm his credibility. Fourthly, he de-recognizes the role of ideology in politics.
The ideological understanding of history by the PPP did recognize the context of Parade Ground, but moved it for narrow partisan reasons. If the system of ideas that comprised the PPP’s ideology acknowledged the role Parade Ground played in the death of the revolutionaries, then Granger and the PNC have to do the same. It must be remembered that the PPP did not move the site for ideological reasons. If Granger goes to the seawall, he will be guilty of ideological betrayal.

---

---