Charrandass Persaud: Passive auditors allow evil to grow

Jan 05, 2023 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

Kaieteur News – I interrupt my series of reflections of 2022 in Guyana which began yesterday to respond to a Stabroek News (SN) editorial on Charrandass Persaud which was distasteful, anti-historical and a constitutes a vile attack on someone that in my opinion is a Guyanese hero.

The Spanish philosopher Jordi Graupera tells us an interesting little incident between him and renown, brilliant 20th American philosopher, Richard Bernstein who died in July last year.

Graupera informs us that he heard that Bernstein was conducting a Zoom lecture for his students on the great German philosopher, Hannah Arendt. Since Graupera was once a philosophy student of Bernstein, he approached the aging philosopher with a request to audit the lecture and to write about it.

Bernstein in his unusual witty style told Graupera that he, Berstein, does not like passive auditors; that if he is joining the class then he would have to participate. Passive auditor is a neat phrase that should be applied to educated people who spend their lives having a conscience but also spend their lives never allowing conscience to break their silence.

So they spend their lives aware that wrong things abound but they never pick up a pen or open their mouth so that the interruption of silence could lead to the enlightenment of others. Social media and the mainstream media could sway the mind toward a dangerous cul-de-sac. When one confronts those dangers, one opens up pathways for other minds to learn. The pen and the voice are a guaranteed rampart against indoctrination.

Hannah Arendt’s beautiful phrase, “the banality of evil” reminds us that indoctrination can lead humans to commit the most unspeakable bestialities as she witnessed in Nazi Germany.

If we do not reject alternative facts, convenient facts, the perpetuation of myths and the use of brain-washing propaganda then silence breeds indoctrination and indoctrination destroys the avenues of knowledge.

Now for the SN editorial on Charrandass Persaud. I quote; “The conduct of a man who clearly has no respect for women. There has not been a public rebuke of Persaud’s vulgar behaviour. This was another sad moment in the history of our country. What new lows have we sunk to now? Others consider him a hero “for voting with his conscience” – whatever he conceives that to be. Given his posturing last Sunday, one imagines this is unlikely to be the last hurrah of Charrandass Persaud.”

This is just a section of the editorial that reaps scorn and insults on both Charran and the Government of Guyana. Anyone familiar with this country will know that commentary was composed by a woman personality and someone who is from the Creole middle class possibly with ethnic and cultural prejudices.

Two issues are involved here. Who decides in Guyana what are moral lows and moral highs? Secondly, if we reach a consensus on the distinction between moral rights and moral wrongs (which is impossible in philosophy), who in this country has in his/her hand the moral compass to make those distinction?

Now for my little contribution to understanding what is a moral violation and how we prioritize moral violations. That is too involved a subject to discuss here so I will contextualize my presentation to Guyana.

Charran’s conduct was a moral outrage for which we must not forget he has apologised. What other acts in Guyana are in the area of moral misconduct? The press is too important to a country’s moral and legal foundation for it to stray into the direction of denial of the right to express oneself.

Last year, Dr. Randolph Persaud, Professor of international relations at the American University in Washington D.C., publicised a conversation he had with the editor in chief (eic) of the SN, Mr. Anand Persaud. The professor complained that his letters were not being carried and he would like to know why.

Now brace yourself for what is morally right and morally wrong. Dr. Persaud said the editor told him his letters criticised civil society organisations and the newspaper will not allow such criticism (please see my columns of October 7 and 10, last year on the controversy).

Which can do more harm to Guyana; the press that undermines freedom of expression or a diplomat ‘cussing’ down a woman? The most disturbing aspect of that the editorial lectures Guyanese on moral laws. The editorial in discussing Charran’s vote in the no-confidence motion noted, “Others consider him a hero “for voting with his conscience” – whatever he conceives that to be.” I wonder what the SN conceives a free and professional press to be. I conclude with an observation of mine made more than fifty years ago as social activist. There are very few in Guyana that can lecture on moral righteousness. Stabroek News is not of them.

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