Sanjeev Datadin’s points are also powerfully theoretica

Apr 02, 2022 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

Kaieteur News – This newspaper carried yesterday, an enunciation by attorney, Sanjeev Datadin, a Member of Parliament on how elected governments use power. I am sorry I missed his presentation. I didn’t know about it. But on reading his articulation, it reminds me of the first-year class in politics when you are a freshman at university.
Let’s first describe Mr. Datadin’s two main points then offer a discussion. First, he argued that a group just cannot make claims on a government for documents. He said that such documents are confidential and the role of government is to preserve such activities of the state.
He used the word, “nonsensical” to describe the surreal situation in which an elected government must get the approval of this and that group for the projects the government undertakes. The second elaboration of the MP is that they are outlets that society provides for citizens to influence the direction of a country. He cites elections.
Mr. Datadin used the words, “not practical” in his rejection of organisations and groups and other entities that demand governments talk to them about sensitive projects. I will not dignify the argument by anyone that groups of concerned citizens must be accommodated by elected administrations when they want to see state documents and be consulted on the projects of government. No government from modern time right up to the present moment embraces such an approach to the use of power. Not only is it not practical, it is fraught with danger, which I will analyse below.
I believe the two points of Mr. Datadin are strongly theoretical and all politics textbooks, without exception, carry an elaboration on how governments must function and those texts are generally supportive of the articulations of Mr. Datadin.
It was the first philosophy book on power in western civilisation that delineated how governments must administer the society – The Republic by Plato. He outlined how government must function and the role of representation. Plato was saddened at how his teacher, Socrates, was arrested and sentenced and sought to correct some of the pitfalls of Socrates’ theory.
What we have in the 21st century is the continuation of the mistake Socrates made thousands of years ago. Dismissive of mediocre government in Athens, Socrates took it upon himself to demand changes. He was seen as a one-man army that the Athenian government felt had no moral obligation to listen to.
But even Plato in strengthening Socrates had holes in his theoretical formulation. It was left to the teacher of Plato, Aristotle, to strengthen Plato’s perspective by introducing legal representation in the use of power. The Roman Empire was respectful of Aristotle’s contribution and made representative government a permanent fixture in politics, which today is found in the constitution of all countries. Modern civilisation owes a permanent debt to Aristotle.
Mr. Datadin did not need to lecture his fellow panelists on how governments operate. The countless textbooks of the distant past and from modern times are there to guide anyone interested in politics. In representative government, elected politicians are entitled to make demands on the government not any and every group.
It is an obligation of the government to discuss state projects with the elected representatives of the state. This includes opposition parliamentarians. There is no textbook I know of and I have taught political theory for 26 years at three universities – one as a full lecturer and two as teaching assistants – that compels an elected government to seek approval from non-elected sections of society in the planning and expenditure of projects.
What a government can do is to accommodate non-elected representation as both a PR and friendly gesture but in not doing so does not make a government undemocratic. Above I stated that there is danger when a government has to consult with and concede the requests of all sorts of groups that want to engage policy-makers.
At a commonsensical level, this is not practical. What you can have is a dangerous messy situation in which government breaks down. So one group in making demands on the government on the right to be consulted is followed by another; then another is born and follows in the footsteps of the others.
What happens when one organisation sees a certain group gets the documents of a project the government has embarked on. It decides to get into the act too. How can self-respecting, elected government accept such chaos? There were 11 opposition parties that contested the 2020 elections.
Why should they not request documents from the government when they see other people getting them who arrogated to themselves the right to make such claims? I hope Mr. Datadin further elaborates so citizens can be educated on how governments function.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---