Discussing the ‘principle of fairness’

Apr 23, 2021 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

I take the opportunity to comment on Eusi Kwayana’s letter of 18 April, in which he discusses the ‘principle of fairness.’
The contents of Kwayana’s letter are fundamentally polemical. Fairness implies freedom and equality of opportunity. While the state and its arms must ensure citizens enjoy both to the fullest, limitations are unavoidable.
In the circumstances, from a general perspective the ‘principle of fairness’ should not conflate self-worth with impossible expectations.
The Constitution of Guyana reminds us that ‘the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual’ are subject to ‘…limitations of that protection, designed to ensure that the enjoyment of the said rights and freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.’
How much fairer can the ‘principle of fairness’ be for each Guyanese in a Constitutional context?
To understand the ‘principle of fairness’ as expressed by Eusi Kwayana, it is necessary to understand the role of the individual in the evolution of Guyanese political culture. This role should be viewed from two perspectives; the ideological and the socio-political.
In some quarters, Kwayana is recognized as a proponent of social justice, while in others, he is perceived as a supporter of the cause exclusively of Black men and women. Internationally, he is known to be a strong advocate of Pan-Africanism a concept considered anathema to others.
Kwayana has a long and checkered history in Guyanese politics beginning from the heyday of the anti-colonial to the post-colonial periods.
Kwayana has been criticised for many positions he took in the past. More recently, he was called out for not to taking a stand against the attempts by the APNU+AFC to rig our country’s last election.
But Kwayana was not alone in that respect. I cannot recall any prominent African Guyanese in good standing who, in the midst of it all, took a stand against the election shenanigans by the APNU+AFC.
This peculiar occurrence did not go unnoticed. Regrettably, it helped solidify a long held perception that elections in Guyana is all about race.
Was it fair for such persons to remain silent in the face of a blatant attempt by a cabal to change the course of history or, should others be considered as unfair to them because they chose to remain silent?
This particular issue became a subject for discussion in many quarters at home and abroad.
In discussing the ‘principle of fairness,’ there are important lessons to be learnt from the 1955 to 1964 period in our country’s history when the trusted became untrustworthy, and when fairness was replaced by treachery.
Usually when Kwayana writes, the contents of his missives are viewed through the prism of race and ethnicity. This is a historical uniqueness peculiar to Kwayana, which to his credit; he has managed to live with to this day.
That uniqueness and peculiarity notwithstanding, I doubt whether Kwayana’s name would ever find its way in Ian McDonald’s weekly pieces profiling ‘Extraordinary People.’
When all is said and done, ‘the principle of fairness’ is more subjective than objective. But the principle of fairness apart, what has kept this country together is its openness and its constant quest for national democracy and good governance in the broader sense of the twin precepts.
Few would disagree that since independence, there has been significant improvements in the rule of law, democratisation of social life, economic growth with social and ecological justice and multi-culturalism with unity in diversity.
A free press and the individual’s right to freedom of expression have been the lynchpins of our fledgling democracy.
True, there have been periods in our country’s history when democracy was trumped by a dictatorship during the Burnham, and to a limited extent, the Hoyte era. Granger made a reckless and futile attempt to follow suit, but failed miserably.
Insignificant as it may seem, it is interesting to note that no political party in Guyana has ever risked to publicly express its commitment to racial/ethno-centric politics as a matter policy.
Our attitude towards political adversaries or those with whom we may have philosophical, ideological or political differences should be guided by Cheddi Jagan’s approach.
Jagan was critical of Burnham, yet he extended critical support to his government and opened talks with him or his representatives in the search for a political solution. He introduced the concept of ‘Winner does not take all.’
Jagan was critical of previous United States’ administrations yet he eventually saw the need to seek the support and work with the US to have free and fair elections in Guyana.
When the WPA refused to consider the PNC as part of a National Front Government, Jagan did.
Jagan was critical of Kwayana, yet they worked together in supporting the strikes of bauxite and sugar workers; in the Arnold Rampersaud Defence Committee; in support of Walter Rodney’s employment at the University of Guyana and for the restoration of democracy; in CDD against a rigged referendum and in the PCD for free and fair elections.
Circling back to Kwayana’s ‘principle of fairness’ the question must be asked; what was it that was so unfair about the conditions that made the holding of free and fair elections in 2020 difficult to achieve? And who were the forces that attempted to change the course of history by attempting to thwart the will of the Guyanese people to elect a government of their choice?
Only Kwayana can answer.

Yours faithfully
Clement J. Rohee

---

---