Patriotism is not the absence of dissent

Mar 04, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Peeping Tom…

Kaieteur News- The question of national security is an old one. And yet it is still capable of drawing men into a state of unreason.

There are few things as powerful as an appeal to the defense of the nation, and few things as perilous. It is one of those incantations that can turn an otherwise sensible conversation into an exercise in fanaticism. And the greatest threat, internally, to a state is fanaticism.

To say that national security is “the singular priority of all citizens” is to misunderstand both the citizen and the nation. It is the sort of claim that makes for stirring speeches but leaves little room for the complexities of governance.

A modern democratic society is a thing of many moving parts, and while national security is among them, it does not exist in isolation. A country that is economically unstable is not secure. A country that fails to provide for the welfare of its citizens is not secure. A country that turns its back on human rights in the name of security is not secure.

And while it is true that an existential security threat can imperil all other national objectives, it is equally true that a natural disaster or a changing climate can do as much, if not more, harm than an invading army. To ignore this is to mistake one kind of peril for the only kind that matters.

There is, too, the troubling suggestion that unity is to be enforced, that disagreement is tantamount to treason. “You are either with us or against us,” suggests that when it comes to national security there is no room for nuance in the mind of a patriot.

A nation, at its best, is a place where disagreement is not only tolerated but expected, even in times of a national security crisis. During the Vietnam War, America was boiling internally with dissent by those opposed to that war. Should those voices have been ignored? Had they, the war would have been a greater misadventure for the Americans.

The man who argues with his government is no less devoted to his country than the man who stands by it in silence. The PPP leadership, for example, has always supported Guyana’s sovereignty, particularly in response to Venezuela’s claims, but it has also been critical of past agreements such as the Geneva Agreement. To imply that internal differences in times of a national security crisis is unpatriotic is to misunderstand patriotism itself.

The PNCR, for its part, has no obligation to support a closer security relationship between Guyana and the United States. To oppose such a move is not to betray the nation; it is to participate in the debate that makes democracy meaningful.

There is, in some circles, a dangerous tendency to treat the United States as a benevolent saviour. But history has taught us that US interests and ours are not always aligned.

The US has not always been our friend. The Venezuelan claim to two-thirds of Guyana’s territory has roots in the Cold War, when the United States saw every frontier as a battleground in its anti-communist crusade. The U.S. government has never been in the business of charity, and its foreign policy has always been shaped by strategic interests rather than altruism. Do not dismiss a rebirth of the Monroe Doctrine, which has long been a justification for American intervention in Latin America. This doctrine invites the kind of meddling that no self-respecting nation should tolerate. The only thing worse than the Monroe Doctrine would be calling upon the United States to pursue its “manifest destiny,” a phrase that has, in the past, meant ruin for those standing in its path.

As for Venezuela, it is struggling, but it is no alms house. To paint the country as a destitute supplicant is to forget that economic hardship is not unique to any one nation. Guyana has known lean times before, and there was a period when many of its sons and daughters left in search of greener pastures.

Some of them have since returned, their memories conveniently selective, their stories tidied up to omit the difficult years. There is an unfortunate habit, among those who have suffered, of believing that their suffering was singular. It is not. The world turns, fortunes rise and fall, and no country, however rich or poor, is immune from the cycles of hardship and recovery.

It is therefore tempting, in times of a national security crisis, to demand absolute loyalty, to insist that all voices be raised in unison. But a nation is not a chorus, and its strength lies not in the uniformity of its people but in their ability to argue, to question, to hold their leaders accountable.

Patriotism is not the absence of dissent. It is, instead, the willingness to care deeply about one’s country—to care enough to question, to challenge, to demand better. And in the end, that is what security truly means: not the suppression of disagreement, but the assurance that a nation is strong enough to withstand it.

(Patriotism is not the absence of dissent)

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

---

• complexities of governance, exercise in fanaticism, invading army., national security, Peeping Tom

---