Latest update February 4th, 2025 5:54 AM
Latest News
It pains more when you are stricken by your own whip
DEAR EDITOR,
I am in agreement with an article by FK in KN,”The freudian authoritarian instincts that drives this Country” on July 31st. Freddie said, “Examine with a meticulous eye, legislation, ministerial edicts, governmental guidelines and related action, and you will see there is hardly the intention to maximize freedom and to allow for the decentralization of authority, and to let power devolve to the communities and the people in general.”
Freddie added, “What is at work in this country since British colonialism is the Freudian love for power.” In the context of the British we understand their motive – Colonialism was dying – the British found it expedient to hang on to every piece of their colonial empire for as long as possible by any means possible. Allowing only the propertied class to vote was deliberately done because they felt that it was the easiest way to control the masses. The rising politicians of the day had to struggle for “adult suffrage” (The right for one man one vote) These politicians – having convinced the masses that independence and nationhood was a good thing – had followed in the footsteps of the British by adopting the same repressive approach to governance after independence. The building of a state as a set of institutions, administered by the Government of the day never materialized. The people had been deceived. Government and state remain inseparable. It is the quintessential reason for our lack of progress since independence. It was all done because of freudian love for power.”
Our constitution, while it does contain its shining spots like Article 13 which states that,” The principal objective….blah blah blah, were never intended to be made into reality. We have seen it (the constitution) being tweaked and twisted by successive regimes, from time to time, to give them the desired leverage to have absolute power.
Our democracy has cloaked our Governments in invisible robes of the monarchy it was intended to replace, and like true tyrants they (Governments) have always strived for autocratic control by repression of dissenting voices. The fact that clause 18 in the proposed cybercrime bill was placed there is testimony of their autocratic proclivity. Dissidence has never been tolerated by the British – that has not changed since independence. In short, repression was replaced by more repression – because it pains more when you are stricken by your own whip.
I was aghast to read in KN on July 31st that Parliament was delayed for 90 minutes because of a letter written by Harry Gill criticizing the Speaker of the House, ”over decisions made against the Opposition”.
Dr. Scotland told the House that the conduct of the Speaker (himself) cannot be criticised, except by way of a substantive Motion. A quick check on the meaning of “substantive” revealed,”having a firm base in reality and so important or meaningful.” Now this is crazy! Who decides what is a ”substantive motion” in parliament? Is it the Speaker or the National Assembly?
Either way we are in a bind because parliament comprises 33 and 32 “die-hards” for the coalition and the PPP respectively. Kaieteur News stated, “The Speaker’s authority in the chair, Dr. Scotland stated, is fortified by many special powers.”
This is clear language. I have no problem with Dr Scotland’s authority staying where it belongs – in the chair in parliament. Why should the letter pages of the papers be taken to Parliament for a debate by the speaker – with intent to get retribution from someone who does not agree with his actions? How does that coincide with freedom of expression?
Harry Gill is entitled to his opinion and has the right to share it in the public domain – taking him before the committee of privileges for his criticisms of the Speaker of the House is repression of dissenting ideas. This essentially echoes my point that 52 years after getting rid of the British, our leaders have not changed a wee bit from the mentality of the British colonialist.
Constructive criticism (criticism supported by logical reasoning) is the equilibrium on which, truth, right, wrong, prejudice and pandemonium balances. Constructive criticism is the impetus for the dispensation of acceptable justice by man. Human beings are very culpable creatures, putting them in positions where it is criminal to criticize them is detrimental to society.
Rudolph Singh
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
The burden of proof rests on the asserting party
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- In recent days there have been serious assertions made and associations implied without... more
OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus
Antiguan Barbudan Ambassador to the United States, Sir Ronald Sanders By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- The upcoming election... more
Weekend Cartoon
