Counter-narrative is a requirement to save Guyanese history

Oct 12, 2019 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

One of the implacable positions I have about Guyana’s social make-up is that the subject, when he or she is written about in the newspapers by persons of influence or power or status in the society, must reply in order to safeguard the accurate recording of history.
We have entered a new stage in societal evolution – social media. If a prominent citizen writes that he heard Usain Bolt refer to Iceland as a terrible place, in the blink of an eye millions of people will post it up on their social media network. If Bolt does not reply and show that the person was malicious because he was an employee dismissed for dishonesty, it goes down as Bolt not liking Iceland.
If a false narrative is not confronted in this age of the ubiquity of social media, then the recording of history may not reflect the facts of history. It is for this reason we must have counter-narratives to confront the ones that are invented for narrow purposes.
The most salient example is the no-confidence motion (NCM) of December 21, 2018. Paralyzed by its success, the leaders of government and their supporters had to offer Guyana and the world an explanation. The narrative centered on the character of Charrandass. He was painted as a corrupt man that took money to sink the ruling entity.
Completely lost in the unfolding drama was the question of the innate integrity of humans. So Charrandass had to be a devil to do what he did. He couldn’t be philosophically inclined and invoke the sacred instinct of conscience. This alternative discourse was drowned out by the bribery narrative.
Charrandass’s admirers did little to confront it. For the past two months we are witnessing in the UK, how parliamentarians can vote against their own government without accepting financial rewards.
Two more ugly narratives have found life in the past weeks and those who want to see history recorded factually must employ their counter-arguments. The first one is by the WPA. Here is the WPA’s interpretation of contemporary Guyanese history which is nakedly fictional.
I quote, “The APNU+AFC coalition government led by President David Granger has the outstanding record of being the only government pre and post-independence that has not engaged in the killing of political opponents.”
That is a depraved distortion. The government that did not engage in any violent act against its opponents was the Jagan presidency, 1992-1997. In that period no anti-government critic was violently assaulted or arrested or jailed or killed.
Now, as expected untold number of young Guyanese may read that WPA’s fiction and accept it as truth, thus the need for a counter-narrative. The second fiction is being perpetuated by UG lecturer, Sherwood Lowe.
I quote Lowe at length because his diatribe is dangerous and pregnant with subtle ethnic ingredients. Here are Lowe’s words; “The results of the 2015 election, clearly demonstrated where the desire and will of the majority of the people resided. So, for many Guyanese, the NCM is not a matter of legalities only. It is a matter of democratic acceptability and legitimacy.
“And the 2018 NCM lacks those qualities outright. So, for Ram and others to call on us to protect our democracy and constitution (given how the NCM was passed) is simplistic, dangerous and, probably, deceitful. Too many view the NCM as illegitimate (the act of one man, acting secretly and deviously).
“For them, the coalition government was democratically elected and therefore properly in place. Ignoring the illegitimacy of the NCM (and how it has nullified the collective will of the people) poses a great risk to our democracy.
”Those who therefore narrowly focus on the legalities of Article 106 and the rulings of the courts are doing a disservice to our young democracy. The discussion needs to return to what Charrandass has done to our democratic soul.”
When you read Lowe you see how deceptive this narrative is and the need for a counter-argument is vitally necessary. Space will not allow for an elaboration so a few quick points. Almost half of the electorate did not vote for the coalition which won by less than one percent. That other half legitimately used a constitutional article to change a government, a legal process which obtains in the constitutions of democratic countries. Lowe sees something fundamentally wrong with that.
He argues that the people’s will was thwarted by Charrandass, just one man. But just one parliamentarian in a parliamentary configuration of 33 versus 32 allows a government which got only 50.6 percent of the vote to run the entire country the past four years.
If that is legitimate and constitutional, why isn’t the NCM equally constitutional?

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)

---

---