Respect for the rule of law, the constitution, and electoral transparency paint the way forward for Guyana

Mar 06, 2019 Letters

DEAR EDITOR,

Permit me space to respond to some of the false assertions and political spins that pervade the letter columns across the spectrum of print-media in recent days.
In particular, I would like to address one that suggested that the Burnham-style dictatorship was a solution to ethno-political and constitutional crises during the earlier post-independence era. Such an assertion rests on unsound foundation; it is flawed and may even be malicious.
Editor, I submit that those who subscribe to the view that the aforementioned dictatorship during which “Burnham solved the problem by installing paramountcy of the party over the courts and the constitution” need their mental state examined.
While pre-independence elections run-ups were characterized by ethnic divisions, the rationale for such behaviour cannot be equated with the ethnic polarization that occurred during the Burnham dictatorship post-independence era.
The ethnic division of the earlier pre-independence era was instigated by the divide and rule/control policy of foreign powers that sought to retain geopolitical and economic control and influence over Guyana.
On the other hand, the Burnham era saw the emergence of a deep-seated ethnic polarization, which today still pervades our society. I must say, however, that an objective examination of the populace today would most likely reveal that the aging, and in many cases, the passing of the generation(s) that had experienced ethnic polarization have paved the way for ethnic reconciliation.
If we look back at the Jagdeo-led administration, we were bound to find evidence of across-ethnic-lines support and popularity for the PPP/C. We cannot say the same for the “party-paramountcy” era, during which the PNC administration controlled the courts and forced non-African and non-PNC supporters to obtain PNC Party cards as prerequisites for employment in the public service.
Undoubtedly, such policy has had an enormous negative impact on non-Africans and non-PNC supporters. Furthermore, given the extended period of about two decades during which this policy existed, deep-seated ethnic resentments emerged and ultimately polarized the nation. Thus, ethnic division, polarization and voting became the order of the day, and as correctly pointed out, are very visible during the run-ups to elections.
Furthermore, the assertion that neither ethnic group would accept losing position in the elections is treading on dangerous ground and could even be malicious. The correct perspective should be the call for respect for the constitution, the rule of law, and open, free and transparent electoral processes. Such a call should, however, be underscored by relevant education/information dissemination geared to inform and educate the populace so that they can take informed decisions on the way forward for their future. Such a programme would engender confidence in the system and the people involved.
In a nutshell, dictatorship, whether Burnham-style or otherwise, is inimical to our socio-economic and political freedom, our prosperity and the future of Guyana.
To such end, the populace should be informed and educated to take political decisions based on policies and programmes geared to address and advance their individual and collective socio-economic needs and aspirations. So far, only the PPP/C administrations have offered such realization to all ethnic groups in Guyana.

Yours sincerely,
Ronald Singh

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News