The President and Jonathan Yearwood: Messenger and message

Mar 24, 2022 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

Kaieteur News – I have argued in several columns of mine that the PPP leadership in anticipating tsunamic rage from the PNC will miss the boat. Relentless rage will come from quarters that the government least expect – the usual suspects, certain organisations tagging themselves as civil society, certain media houses and the Creole middle-class.
Please see my article of Thursday, January 20, 2022, “Deadly parallel between Guyana and the US in 2022.” In that column, I quoted what the famous journalist Carl Berstein wrote about the US and showed its vivid relevance to Guyana. Here is Berstein: “The idea that the Trump base is some narrow group of white men with guns? Bullshit. This is a huge movement including misogynistic women, including racists of every kind, but also including all kinds of educated people in cities and suburbs”.
If the researcher examines Guyana’s political landscape since the election controversy died in August 2020, he/she will see the very things Berstein is talking about. The stiffest opposition to PPP’s rule, since 2021 began, has not come from the PNC and the nine other parties that contested the general election. It has come from the following; the lunatic fringe, the usual suspects, certain organisations that are deemed to be part of civil society and the Creole middle-class.
This direction is unceasing. The examples are countless. For the sake of brevity let’s discuss two gentlemen – the president and social activist Jonathan Yearwood. Please note, Mr. Yearwood is not known to be a government supporter and is generally regarded as an independent activist. Mr. Yearwood remains to date (except this columnist), the only Guyanese in and out of Guyana to demonstrate his disagreement with a woman who addressed an international organisation requesting their intervention in Guyana to stop oil drilling.
Mr. Yearwood’s response was commonsensical and simple but he was trenchant. He should be quoted: “Here I am, thinking that every Guyanese would want to have the best for Guyana and for our Government to utilise the money made from the oil industry to develop the country. Unfortunately, it appears that these two intelligent women want to shut down the fledgling oil industry.”
The other woman he referred to was a person who wanted the EPA to close down Exxon’s Liza Destiny oil vessel.
If you want the government to take you seriously, you have to demonstrate a capacity and character for independent thinking. You have to establish a record of fairness in denouncing the faults and flaws that show up in your country. Governments do wrong things, business people do wrong things, the security forces do wrong things, civil society organisations do wrong things. Your record as a watchdog must reflect a willingness to critique all sides when they falter.
To date there is no criticism when a certain organisation that advocates election reform made an unnecessary accusation of mischief. It believes that the division of Region Four into four sub-divisions as one of the amendments to the Representation of the People Act is not a good thing. How can other organisations remain silent on this unreasonable behaviour?
It is this kind of hypocrisy the president has hit out against when he referred to certain civil society actors as having a stance of convenience. Let’s quote him: “We cannot confuse civil society with individual organisations, that is, organisations that are run by individuals or are not open to the wider membership of our country. These organisations cannot be the conscience of truth or the conscience of society when they are convenient in the way they address issues”.
I see absolutely nothing suspicious, devious, misleading and uncouth about this emanation. It is the kind of stuff that Prime Ministers and Presidents utter all the time around the world when they feel that their detractors are not moral examples or have double standards in their activism. Since the president expressed his feelings, some civil society groupings have demonstrated even more double standards. These are the people that constantly remind us not to confuse the messenger with the message. But they have done exactly that. When you separate the president from his statement, the question must be asked: Does he have a point and, if not, why?
He makes two claims. One is that we must not confuse civil society with organisations that are not broad-based. The other is that some civil society groups find their voices when it is convenient for them to do so. What is truculent, aggressive and intimidating about this reaction?
It is the kind of stuff Prime Ministers and Presidents say often about those who attack their policies. But more importantly, is his argument a reasonable one? The answer is yes.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---