The loser must concede defeat

May 14, 2020 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

Everyone I spoke with in Guyana and in the diaspora applaud the writings of Freddie Kissoon on the elections. An analysis of countless columns and letters regarding the election count shows who are supporting the two positions: condemnation (criticism) of the fraud with cited evidence and silence or excuse or defense or refusal to acknowledge it.
Freddie Kissoon and other objective columnists and letter writers expose the electoral frauds. Freddie is the most courageous. In contrast, a few other columnists, supporters and other defenders of the government can’t bring themselves to condemn the electoral fraud of March 2. Citing court cases (let the law take its course) or a recount is not excuse to be silent on the Mingo or Lowenfield fraud. It is not that people don’t know that the Mingo count and Lowenfield report was a fraud. The issue is why are some people silent on the fraud and even excuse it or are pretentious about the rigging. Those affiliated with or benefiting from the government don’t wish to lose their perks or benefits were their party to lose office. For some, ethno nationalism explains their silence or excusing it. Power (all of its elements – political, social, economic, control over the state) is at stake; they don’t want to lose power and or privileges. Those of us who study sociology, anthropology, and political science, the subjects that deal with this concept of ethno nationalism and political power, understand the thinking of the leadership of ethnic parties in ethnically plural nations like Guyana.
Leadership in countries with a history of authoritarian governance is not inclined to give up power in a fractured, tribalized society such as Guyana where politics is influenced by ethnic garrisons. The stake is very high – the leadership is fearful of the repercussions to its supporters and to entrepreneurs who back the party. Thus, the party leadership and its advocates pursue all measures to remain in office, with some even suggesting illegal options if necessary to protect the interests of investors and the party base. The world saw this played out in country after country in Africa and in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, among others that eventually broke up into several ethnic republics.
In Guyana, some didn’t and still don’t care how an ethno nationalist party remain in office as the country experienced election rigging and fascist rule; it must not yield power as was the case with the Burnham/Hoyte dictatorships (1966 to 1992). And support for such an unprincipled position comes from other external forces. One must understand ethno nationalists, and others expressing pride in and or defending their people and party. I note the hypocrisy and duplicity of some who called US intervention in Guyana in 2015 to drive the PPP from office, but oppose US intervention now to secure democratic governance. Is it a case of “okay for my people to engage in electoral fraud but others should not impose fraud on my people”? It is understandable that they want to protect the interests of their people. That is normal in ethnic politics. No one prevents members or advocates of other group from advocating for their group (Amerindians, Chinese, Whites, Indians, and others). In fact, they all should make demands on the state for their fair share regardless of which (ethnic) party controls the state; there are hardly equivalents as the above names in other groups. The problem is how does one get the state to distribute resources equitably in proportion to the national population.
Reading the arguments of ethnic nationalists supporting the government, electoral fraud is generally excused as necessary to empower their supporters through their elected representatives or party. How does one get a party or its defenders to respect outcome of democratic elections? As we learn from ethnic studies on Africa and Europe, foreign pressure and at times military force is often required to expel the oppressive dictatorship from office after a democratic election. It is hoped Guyana will not reach that stage. But clearly, not every party or its supporters and defenders are prepared to respect the outcome of a democratic election in Guyana.
One applauds Freddie for not supporting or championing any ethnic group or political group. As he penned, he supported a small party unlike some who supported the government. Freddie has been objective and consistent on the issue of electoral fraud and he does not comprise that issue regardless of friendship or family relationship. For Freddie, once you lost an election, step aside – democracy in action! Some others take the extreme opposite position to that taken by Freddie. It won’t work in Guyana. The loser must concede defeat, and as a condition for stepping down can make reasonable demands (like relatively equitable allotment of resources) to secure the interests of its supporters.

Yours truly,
Dr. Vishnu Bisram

---

---