Aristotle should be compulsory reading for APNU and the AFC

Feb 04, 2017 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

In Plato’s breath-taking philosophical treatise, THE REPUBLIC, he put the philosophy-king class at the apex of society. He argued that because of their advanced learning, they are better humans therefore society should rely on their judgments.
As Plato came under criticism for treating the philosophy-king class as impeccably virtuous people, he extended the class to include others and it became less elitist. He changed the name from philosophy-king class to Nocturnal Council (nocturnal in those times did not mean “occurring at night” which is its present meaning).
Aristotle, Plato’s student, was still unhappy with Plato’s shape of justice distribution even though Plato had essentially moved away from the omnipotent rule of the philosophy king-class by conceding power to the less noble in the form of the Nocturnal Council.
Aristotle can safely be described as the first philosopher in the western world who adumbrated the system of legal rules in the distribution of justice. His work had great influence on the Romans thus it was no accident that the Romans were known for the systemization of laws.
Aristotle’s contribution to philosophy was his invention of mechanism to serve in the distribution of justice. He felt justice should never be left to the integrity of the philosophically endowed ruler because despite his impeccability he is after all human and humans make mistakes.
Since Aristotle two thousand years ago then, laid down ground rules backed by functioning mechanisms have been a staple diet in the role of government. The American constitution is said to be one of the most elaborate ones of how these mechanisms work.
Against this background, it is unthinkable that the AFC would want to remove from the Cummingsburg Accord, the laid out mechanism for solving dispute between the Coalition partners. At a press conference on Friday last the AFC said that it will delete that feature in the Cummingsburg Accord when that document comes up for renewal next year.
The AFC says it prefers the leaders to thrash out their differences through direct talks. That is a very dangerous, retrogressive step. It is unthinkable that the leadership of APNU would want to concur.
What is mind-boggling about this intention of the AFC is that it comes right in the middle of a semantic dispute between the PPP and the Government over the interpretation of what the words, “And any other fit and proper person” means in the Guyana Constitution.
One recalls Yesu Persaud’s now famous revelation. He explained that in the house of medical doctor, Moti Lall, in Republic Park, shortly after he became President, Dr. Cheddi Jagan had a meeting with some businessmen. President Jagan rejected a request to see as a priority the changing of the constitution to lessen the enormous powers it gives to the president. Mr. Persaud recounted that President Jagan told the group; “Can you see me being a dictator?”
Dr. Jagan did not change the constitution and one of his successors, Bharrat Jagdeo, did become a dictator. Dr. Jagan grew up in politics with the culture of Leninism. Leninism has as one of its main fulcrums, the Vanguard Party. This in Leninist ideology is a pure, omnipotent body that is charged with the task of bringing about the classless society.
Lenin never admitted it, but he borrowed the concept from Plato’s philosophy-king class. No one dares to question the Vanguard Party under communism. Those who questioned the purity of the Vanguard Party were put to death under Stalin, Mao-tse Tung and Pol Pot. The figures run into the millions.
If you have a coalition of two parties with different ideological and class backgrounds why would you not want a functional referee system of either or two or three or six impartial and neutral persons to handle the disputes and come up with solutions? Why would that be of lesser value than the leaders trashing it out themselves? What happens when they cannot agree on a matter that is of utmost importance to them both politically and emotionally?
Isn’t that how the world operates?
Don’t we have judges that adjudicate? Don’t we have a mediation institution in which the mediator is a neutral person? Isn’t there a United Nation dispute body that hears complaints from nations? Isn’t there an arbitration system in industrial relations and the arbitrator must be neutral and his/her ruling must be accepted?
In a country that is politically unstable for over sixty years, and in which there the spirit of compromise hardly exists, why would the AFC want to remove such a precious clause from the Cummingsburg Accord? But then again, does in Guyana make sense?

---

---