The Authoritarian Instinct

Nov 03, 2019 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The authoritarian instinct – the tendency of governments to require persons to obey and comply with their edicts, even to the point of suppressing and denying those person’s freedoms – is alive and kicking here in Guyana. It shows the fragility of democracy and the degree of lip service which is paid to it by our governments.
The authoritarian instinct was at work when the APNU+AFC instead of accepting its defeat in a non-confidence motion decided to engage in ingenious and spurious legal challenges in order to avoid complying with the democratic process.
The authoritarian instinct is alive and well when government’s become vindictive against persons who they feel are their political opponents. It is evident in the strong punishing the weak.
The PNCR came out of an authoritarian culture. But the AFC, it was assumed, was more liberal and was expected to contain the authoritarian instinct of the PNCR in the Coalition government. It has not done so; it has become even more authoritarian than the PNCR.
It was announced recently that the government is planning to hire an international firm to investigate Charrandass Persaud. This is another example of the authoritarian instinct at work. The police could find no evidence of criminal wrongdoing against Persaud, yet hundreds of millions of dollars are now going to be wasted to go looking for a needle in a haystack.
That money could have been out to better use. Everyday persons have to wait long, long hours for treatment at the Accident and Emergency Department of the Georgetown Public Hospital.
Instead of spending money to improve this critical service, the government wants to punish a man who simply vote in accordance with his conscience in supporting a no-confidence motion. From day one after the passage of the no-confidence motion it went after Charrandass Persaud. It decided to investigate whether he had taken any bribes to vote the way he did.
The ruling party made unsubstantiated allegations. It said that he received bribes from a Trinidadian entity. The police should have interviewed those who made the allegations and asked them to produce the evidence or face charges for inciting public mischief.
The authoritarian instinct was at work in the upbraiding of the High Commissioner of Canada for doing what any foreign mission is obligated to do: protect its foreign nationals, including ensuring their safe departure from a foreign jurisdiction.
The authoritarian instinct was at work in the summary expulsion of Charrandass Persaud from the Alliance for Change. He was expelled without even so much as a hearing, and for doing what the CCJ said was lawful and constitutional.
The CCJ in considering whether Persaud was obligated to vote along party lines observed that “Fealty to one’s party cannot override sworn allegiance to the Constitution and to the people of Guyana. Members of parliament, should they so decide, and as long as they are willing to pay the political price, are not to be denied the freedom to vote according to the dictates of their conscience even in a proportional representation system.”
The Court also noted “Central to the freedom ‘to follow the dictates of personal conscience’ is the oath of office. Members are required to swear or affirm faithfulness to the Republic and obedience to the Constitution and laws. Nowhere does the supreme law provide for them to swear allegiance to their political parties, important players though they are in our constitutional scheme.”
The authoritarian instinct is at work in the extreme rationing of state advertisements to both the Stabroek News and the Guyana Times. The indisputable impression is being conveyed that there are consequences to criticism of the government.
The cock-and- bull excuse that the Stabroek News did not indicate that it was willing to accept state advertisements can no longer be used any longer to explain why it is that during the month of October state advertisements continued to be withheld from both the Stabroek News and the Guyana Times.
The nonsense that is peddled that the placement of state ads being based on fairness should be rebuked. Who determines fairness? And what is fairness?
Fairness has nothing to do with the failure to not report on an event at which the President spoke. Each day editors have to make choices about what goes in a newspaper. Some stories of public interest usually are dropped or deferred to another day. If, however, other media entities cover the story that was deferred, then it becomes stale news and may not be carried at a future date.
Farness in journalism has nothing to do with what was reported; it has to do with how a particular issue is covered. Fairness in journalism refers to the practice of ensuring that all sides of a story are ventilated.
Those who will remain silent in the face of the increasing exercise of the authoritarian instinct here in Guyana should be reminded of Martin Niemöller’s famous quotation:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

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

---

---