The Constitution’s reference to ‘inclusionary democracy’ has become hollow

Jul 26, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

I begin this letter with the following excerpt from the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana:
‘The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organizations in the management of decision making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.’
Applied in the context of occurrences in our country since May 2015, when APNU+AFC took office, the Constitution’s reference to ‘inclusionary democracy’ has become hollow to the extent that ‘inclusionary’ has become exclusionary, while the coalition’s genre of democracy is slowly but surely withering away under our very noses.
And ’Opportunities for the participation of citizens and their organizations in the management and decision-making processes of the State’ as for example in the electoral process, has become such a mockery and one-sided affair that it is boggles the mind how such transgressions are taken for granted.
The Constitutional guarantee for protecting the well-being of citizens has been turned on its head, becoming a guarantee that protects the interests of the well connected who unashamedly, feed on state resources and syphon off huge portions of our national patrimony for their personal enrichment.
The sum total of the massive scams and sleaze that have piled up on the backs of the coalition has become so cancerous that, like vermin, they eat away at the sinews of the moral fibre of Guyanese society and, by extension, the raison d’être of the State’s stability and viability.
People usually look to those who ‘sit at the top’ to set the example. To them, ‘the top’ means the upper class sophisticates who are either ‘in charge’ of one entity or another as well as those who govern the country. But when those at the top say one thing but do the opposite, people view such acts as betrayal or immoral or both.
In many instances, people’s religious upbringing and convictions play a big role in determining wrong from right and what is immoral and what isn’t, at the end of the day they abhor such transgressions.
In these modern times, there is a more enlightened approach to politics and immorality. Under specific circumstances, it is known as political immorality.
Corruption by ruling elites managing the affairs of government and their attempts to hold on to power by any means necessary is considered as immorality in politics.

To many, the worst act of immorality in politics is to claim support for free and fair elections while at the same time setting in motion a process to thwart the sovereign will of the people.
In its editorial published on July 21 2019, the Sunday Stabroek elucidated on a topical but profound subject viz; ‘Power and perception.’ The editorial alluded to a number of instances to which power and perception have impacted public morality.
Though the editorial did not brand the missteps of government as political immorality, here is a good example of how this phenomenon manifests itself and how it can cause a breakdown of the moral fibre in Guyanese society.
According to the S/N editorial;
‘There has been nothing done by this government in its four years in office which has caused such damage to the fragile democratic fabric of this society and to its brittle legal framework. In a very fundamental sense, this has set us back decades, not years.’
This assessment captures the zeitgeist of APNU+AFC’s tenure in office between 2015 and 2019. People who aspire to office are judged by the electorate on the basis of representation made on their behalf and promises made to them. From a people’s perception, the aspirants are adjudged politically.
When the aspirants get into power as is the case with APNU+AFC and their first act is to increase their salaries hundred fold; when they get caught up in acts of corruption, and, when the promises made are not fulfilled, people lose confidence and hope, and trust becomes well nigh impossible to restore.
The S/N editorial asks rhetorical, but important questions concerning the President’s mindset as regards the present situation;
‘Just what is going on in his mind?…It’s as if he is determined to see out this government’s full term and is prepared to bulldoze through the Constitution, rules and institutions in order to achieve that.’
The editorial’s second reference to the President’s mindset was;
‘As it is, however, people are tired of the tension and uncertainty being generated by the actions of government, and his presidential air notwithstanding, he himself is associated with intransigence and inflexibility in their minds.’
Scholars have referred to two types of mindsets, fixed and growth. Persons with a ‘fixed mindset’ hold the belief that their talents and intelligence are inborn, fixed and unchangeable. Persons with a ‘growth mindset’ believe that these abilities can be developed and strengthened by way of commitment and hard work.
The references to mindset mentioned in the S/N editorial put those who govern our country presently in the category of persons with a fixed mindset. Their non-performance, damage done, and obstinacy of recent vintage, puts them unmistakably in that category.
People have a general expectation to be treated fairly; they are inclined to reasonableness and yearn to have their problems addressed in a timely and impartial manner by those at the top.
Any unexplained variation or non-implementation of their legitimate expectations is viewed with suspicion, as deceptive and immoral.
Naïveté aside, deception finds many believers and, though the loss of honour may be worse than the loss of life, yet there are those in our midst who are prepared to surrender their honour, credibility and self-respect to become epigoni without social consciousness or moral rectitude.
In the circumstances, attempts by the well-connected elite in Guyana to explain away their immoral self-interests by referring to what was meted out to their ancestors, leave the marginalized and dispossessed to ask what about their ancestors…was not similar treatment meted out to them as well?
The prevailing moral conviction at the top appears to be ‘all of self and none of thee,’ unmoved by reality, cocooned in self-righteousness and total abandonment of restraint to get their way in order to stay in power.
The outcries of the political opposition have thus far, fallen on deaf ears by the Granger-led administration. Suffice it to say some whimpers have been heard emanating from sections of the international community.
Altering Mr. Granger’s line of thinking and the perverse course of his, and the collective fixed mindset of APNU+AFC can be done only by active, not passive resistance, total defiance and mass action by all the political and social forces united under one roof.
What Guyana needs is a mindset that mobilizes ethnic and cultural diversity and political pluralism in the colours of the Golden Arrowhead.
The Granger-led coalition administration should take a page from the African Ubuntu philosophy which holds that self exists in relation to others. Ubuntu represents a new way to look at ethics, morality and freedom.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee

---

---