2008-7-20: The AFC Column - WILL DETER ELECTED DICTATORSHIPS By Khemraj Ramjattan


Ravi Dev’s “Elected Dictatorship?” article last week was critical of Eusi Kwayana’s description of the present PPP/C Government as an elected dictatorship.

I, like so many others, have described this Government exactly in such terms for sometime now although another characterisation - “control-freakism” - is more well-known in Parliamentary circles.

More significantly, whilst still a member of the PPP/C, I had begun arguing that unless this “creeping dictatorship under Jagdeo’s Presidency” was halted, difficult times lay ahead. This more than anything else hastened my expulsion by a core group of …yes…internal party dictators.

I want to urge that there is nothing un-intellectual about Kwayana’s description. Indeed, the PPP/C was duly elected; and, indeed its behaviour is dictatorial. So elected dictatorship is apt because it is an honest, truthful description as one can get.

That Ravi feels such a description will justify confrontational and violent tactics and hence his basis for the rejection of such a description is what may be regarded as un-intellectual.

Let us assume for one moment that such a description is deleted from Guyana’s political radar. With all the arrogance, corruption, authoritarianism which runs riot in our political landscape, would we still not have seen confrontational violent politics emerging today? Most certainly! This Government’s behaviour in office inevitably causes massive frustration and alienation which then give reason especially to the disaffected intelligentsia to fight against the State.

So whether we hide this description of “elected dictatorship” from our political lexicon and/or use its equivalent “the tyranny of the majority”, the dangers of confrontation and violent politics will surely arise to attempt a counter of the Government’s political misbehaviour.

But what causes this elected dictatorship or tyranny of the majority in a political community such as ours? It is, primarily, bad leadership, and secondarily, an unreasoning followership.

I seriously doubt that an elected dictatorship, such as the one that exists in Guyana today, can be prevented from coming into existence through the mechanism of a written constitution. No matter how perfectly drafted, such a constitution cannot exclude this possibility because men are not angels. Even in homogenous societies this can happen, as has happened when their political leadership begins to rot. One cannot legislate against bad leadership.

Ravi, however, makes the argument that this tyranny of the majority, this elected dictatorship which results in confrontational and violent politics can go away: firstly, in the short run by a temporary shared Executive; and, secondly, in the long run by federalism. These two solutions comprise the more peaceful, fruitful avenues available. This we all know has been his argument from the inception. It is premised, he argues, on the fact that Guyana has an intractable problem – “ethnic/racial factions, a twin Ethnic security dilemma precipitated by our particular constellation of demographics and power resources”.

So no matter what we in Guyana seek to do, this intractable ethnic/racial problem will remain with us unless and until, as he posits, a federalist constitution is established.

Thus he steers his argument into federalism. He even chastises the political actors – Government and Opposition – for not walking this federalist course in 2000.

But should an effort into a federalist project again be renewed? I think not. There is hardly any support for it. Like the PPP/C’s socialist construct which it will resurrect and restate at its next Congress but will never care to attend to because its commanding cabal loves the bourgeoisie lifestyles.

“Federalism”, as some of its main intellectual proponents have conceded, “is not cheap. It involves duplication of facilities, functions, personal and infrastructure.” Often it entails jurisdictional disputes which brings on the question of how will the demarcation lines be drawn up? Who will do so? It would be semi-partition of Guyana in my forecast. And how are we so certain we will not have the tyranny of the majority within each State so subdivided? We are too small and too poor. Moreover, as has happened, our local political actors did not support it. And I have grave doubts whether the main external influencers will.

I have argued that our present constitution may not be perfect (surely none will ever be), but the wrongs of our society must not be placed on our 2000 Constitution. The wrongs must squarely be situated in the laps of the PPP/C Government’s bad governance and immoral and corrupt leadership which began since the demise of Dr. Jagan in 1997.

This decline has been permitted to continue up to today because of an unreasoning followership made up of largely an East Indian voting block which persists with its support for the PPP/C in the face of these indicting ills mentioned.

The Party’s mantra at elections time, especially at bottom houses, also inflames passions towards this result – the mantra being: “Alyou want blackman deh?” Many right thinking East Indians get persuaded with this illogic and fall prey to it.

This was exactly the approach (and even worse) used by the PNC when in office in getting Afro Guyanese from not quitting its camp notwithstanding that Party’s leadership committing excesses which passed certain thresholds to reach the even more despicable level of “unelected dictatorship”. Today the PNC makes the subtle ethnic plea to a somewhat less numerically but still strong unreasoning followership in the Afro Guyanese block with the mantra: “Come back home……. you all see who bad now?”

These tactics resonate, and politicians invoke them at elections campaign. But will it always be so? Could there not be a transcending of ethnic gravitations?

To these two questions my answer is: “I believe that it will not always be so. And indeed there can be a transcendence of ethnic gravitations in Guyana.”

Our turbulent political history may falsely suggest that ethnic conflict is inevitable. But it is not inevitable! Moreover, I have learnt that when races cannot or seem not to want to live together they continue to live together. There is no visceral hatred for each other in our races/ethnicities here in Guyana.

So what is needed is a deconstruction of the unreasoning follower to a construction of the reasoning subject.

This is our modern day challenge and will be realised with hard experiences which educate the unreasoning on both sides of the divide. Such a platform too will launch good leadership and will penalize bad leadership.

This is an aspect of the AFC’s reconciliation and healing project which we carry around the country. Intellects like Ravi Dev must push for an education of the masses in this direction for it will be far more peaceful and acceptable an alternative.

Let us give that a try. This way we will solve tomorrow what appears to be today’s intractable problem.

Source

quote:

I, like so many others, have described this Government exactly in such terms for sometime now although another characterisation - “control-freakism” - is more well-known in Parliamentary circles.

These "control freaks" are really afraid of others and their way is always the "right" way. Remember the purchase of the helicopters?

I disagree with a couple things from this article:

I seriously doubt that an elected dictatorship, such as the one that exists in Guyana today, can be prevented from coming into existence through the mechanism of a written constitution. No matter how perfectly drafted, such a constitution cannot exclude this possibility because men are not angels. Even in homogenous societies this can happen, as has happened when their political leadership begins to rot. One cannot legislate against bad leadership.

But one can establish a constitutional system whereby checks and balances would override decisions based on dictatorial tendencies.



The Party’s mantra at elections time, especially at bottom houses, also inflames passions towards this result – the mantra being: “Alyou want blackman deh?” Many right thinking East Indians get persuaded with this illogic and fall prey to it.

Right thinking?



I also don’t think that federalism should not be considered simply because there is a lack of support for it. While he lists other reasons for not supporting it that I don’t disagree with, this is not a good reason. Worthy causes sometimes are not supported because of a lack of understanding and one needs to build support.

All of this complaint emanates from political rivalry and not necessarily dictatorial practices or tendencies on the part of the PPP/Civic gov't. Intelligent people reading this article would be prompted to look at the realities of Guyana through their own unbiased lenses and not through that of political rivals of the gov't. Reading between lines tells a whole lot about the intentions of the writer. Mr. Ramjattan refused to comment on Mr. Dev's comment about how many Blacks would have voted for the AFC if he was the party's candidate rather than Raphael Trotman. Politicians are good at ignoring points that would make them look foolish and shallow.

Ramjattan had his grouses with the PPP. I do not doubt that he may have been mistreated and driven out because he butted head with Jagdeo. Conflicts arise in political parties all the time. The resignation of Gomattie Singh from the AFC instantly created an image of the AFC when she called Trotman a "Burnhamite dictator". She was replaced with an Afro who desperately needed a salary according to the leader of the AFC.

quote:

Ramjattan: Ravi, however, makes the argument that this tyranny of the majority, this elected dictatorship which results in confrontational and violent politics can go away: firstly, in the short run by a temporary shared Executive; and, secondly, in the long run by federalism. These two solutions comprise the more peaceful, fruitful avenues available. This we all know has been his argument from the inception. It is premised, he argues, on the fact that Guyana has an intractable problem – “ethnic/racial factions, a twin Ethnic security dilemma precipitated by our particular constellation of demographics and power resources”.

Federalism and power sharing will not eliminate ethnic rivalry, but it will provide the framework within which the different group can work together. The current Constitution breeds competition for power and alienation. It leads to zero sum outcomes.

The multiethnic party – which Ramjattan supports – will never provide that legally binding framework to work together. Ultimately they in the so-called multiethnic AFC have to pander and at the same time use tokenism. They will need token leaders to appeal to one ethnic group. Once you start along that line you are right back to PNC and PPP hypocrisy.

We all know once people start to work on a common goal, which could be economic development in Guyana’s case, conflict and rivalry will subside in the long run.

Let’s cut the pretense Mr. Ramjattan: the multiethnic government is superior to the multiethnic party.

July 13, 2008 | KN Features / Columnists > Ravi Dev

Ravi Dev Column - Elected Dictatorship?

Elder Eusi Kwayana, reacting recently to the government’s delay in approving thirty-nine EU funded micro-projects, declared, “Their refusal to explain their official action is also yet another example of the arrogance and disrespect that is their hallmark. I strongly disagree with those who claim that there cannot be an elected dictatorship. We know a dictatorship mainly by its behaviour, not by how it achieved office.”

I am one of those who have disagreed with the labelling of the present PPP government as an “elected dictatorship”. Mr Kwayana is one who strives to live his truth and his pronouncements are consequently not mere intellectual wordplay but insights distilled out of experience.

In recapitulating the reasons for my position, I am hoping that Mr Kwayana would elaborate on his summary dismissal of my dismissal. We can only gain from his insights.

My position was not a theoretical one but was proffered within a debate that was precipitated by concerns that the categorisation of the PPP government as a “dictatorship” – one even worse than the regime of Mr Burnham – served to justify the actions of those who had chosen violence to remove them. The professor, who deployed the assessment, responded that he intended it as only applying to certain (specified) manifestations - not tout court - and redefined the regime as “an elected dictatorship”.

Michael Ignatieff had made what I consider to be a very pertinent observation after he retired from academic life (Harvard) and entered politics (Canada): “In academic life, false ideas are merely false and useless ones can be fun to play with. In political life, false ideas can ruin the lives of millions and useless ones can waste precious resources. An intellectual’s responsibility for his ideas is to follow their consequences wherever they may lead. A politician’s responsibility is to master those consequences and prevent them from doing harm.”

My rejection of the “elected dictatorship” label was based on the same fears as before: with the stress on the “dictatorship”, it justified ongoing confrontational and violent political tactics when, in my estimation, more peaceful fruitful avenues were available.

There was, I pointed out, the vehicle of free and fair elections. And we arrive at Elder Kwayana’s formulation: “We know a dictatorship mainly by its behaviour, not by how it achieved office.”

Now, I agree that the PPP has been guilty of acting in an authoritarian or dictatorial fashion on occasions but that is a far cry from asserting that there is a dictatorship in place here and now – especially when there are no restraints on voting the rascals out of office.

Eusi, however, is possibly making another point – that a government could be voted into office (“achieved office”) and then subvert the institutions of democracy and install a regime (rules and institutions) that constitutes a dictatorship.

I agree that this is possible – Hitler was a famous example – but no one has pointed out the destruction of any democratic institution enshrined in our constitution, which permits changing the government as Hitler had done to his.

The term “elected/elective dictatorship” was applied rather famously by Lord Hailsham in 1976 to the labour government of the UK. But he himself noted the parameters of his usage: the unique nature of the British parliament: “… the powers of our own Parliament are absolute and unlimited. And in this, we are almost alone. All other free nations impose limitations on their representative assemblies.”

Even though we refer to our system as a Westminster system, unlike the British we have a written constitution that is supreme over the Parliament, the President and all other institutions of the state.

The PPP government has to rule under the law of the Constitution and the last time I checked this constitution was still the one that the government and the joint opposition unanimously approved in 2000 after countrywide consultations and submissions to revise the Burnhamite Constitution that had been imposed by fiat, in the fashion of dictatorships.

The government is thus under the scrutiny and stricture of a Judiciary that can apply sanctions to it if it violates that most democratically constituted constitution.

What we have in Guyana is a problem of democracy that has been discussed ever since the term was analysed by Aristotle over two millennia ago - the ever-present danger of a “tyranny of the majority”.

With democracy becoming the most popular form of government in the last couple of hundred years, almost every political theorist has weighed in on the dangers of a majority once ensconced in office, running roughshod over the minority.

The fear of being voted out and becoming the minority usually tempers the majority’s excesses but where, as Madison warned, there are entrenched “factions” the dangers are more acute.

In our age, we have discovered that ethnic/racial factions, such as we have in Guyana, are the most intractable.

Under our present circumstance it does not matter which party or coalition of parties wins the election – the potential of “the tyranny of the majority” remains as a clear and present danger to peace and stability in our country.

Our entry into Guyanese politics has been precisely to highlight the dangerous consequences of our potential “tyranny of the majority”, - our twin Ethnic Security Dilemmas, which are precipitated by our particular constellation of demographics and power resources.

We have made numerous proposals, including a temporary shared executive - and a federalist constitution along the lines explicitly suggested by Madison to address the problem of factions and “the tyranny of the majority” in the fledgling USA.

In the earlier debate, we pointed out that the definition of the present regime as a “dictatorship” - elected or otherwise – and the consequent inevitable demands for protest actions was not only strategically, but also tactically mistaken.

While the PPP has worked assiduously to secure the Indigenous People’s vote to maintain its majority in case their Indian support base fissures, the opposition’s confrontational tactics has worked to solidify that base.

Their latest demand for an enquiry into the activities of Roger Khan without tying it to one on the entire East Coast violence (as was done on the Gajraj affair in 2004) is also in that vein.

There are those that rail against Indians not leaving the PPP, but it is the opposition politicians who have to give them the assurance that the consequences of such a move would not be disastrous for them. To those who also rail against “pandering”, witness the moves of Mr Obama to secure a majority in the US.

Finally, I take the opportunity to express, as always, my deepest respect for Elder Kwayana and his work.

This elected dictatorship notion is very tricky. The PPP is clearly not the kind of dictatorship like the PNC. That’s what I take away from Ravi’s essays on these matters.

But one cannot deny that significant aspects of the society today are controlled by a small PPP cabal that typically wants people to do their biddings and not that of the country. Moreover, free and fair elections did not bring good governance to Guyana.

But this PPP cabal is foolish. One only has to observe that Skinny has escaped, the helicopter has mysteriously blown up (the engine), the army and police cannot catch anyone. No one will ever be brought to justice for the pre-Roger Khan mayhem on the East Coast. It is clear the cabal is delusional and is only concerned about itself. This cabal plays directly into the many tactical traps that are set for it such as banning Moseley and withdrawing ads support. They fall for the trap by not making governance transparent and letting the public know who is getting state contracts, etc. They play into the tactical hand by perpetrating the radio monopoly.

Sometimes you have to give those who want to “make the country ungovernable” a long enough rope so they can hang themselves. Making tactical concessions in this “war of the flea” should not be seen as weakness but strength! Anyhow, I’ve said enough!

quote:

RAVI DEV: Their latest demand for an enquiry into the activities of Roger Khan without tying it to one on the entire East Coast violence (as was done on the Gajraj affair in 2004) is also in that vein.

There are those that rail against Indians not leaving the PPP, but it is the opposition politicians who have to give them the assurance that the consequences of such a move would not be disastrous for them. To those who also rail against “pandering”, witness the moves of Mr Obama to secure a majority in the US.

Anyhow, the statement above furnishes the reason for me posting this article by Raviji!

Mr Ramjattan and Mr. Freddi Kissoon should ponder upon it. They should sleep upon it tonight. For me it is the most important piece in the essay!

quote:

Originally posted by TK:
Federalism and power sharing will not eliminate ethnic rivalry, but it will provide the framework within which the different group can work together. The current Constitution breeds competition for power and alienation. It leads to zero sum outcomes.

The multiethnic party – which Ramjattan supports – will never provide that legally binding framework to work together. Ultimately they in the so-called multiethnic AFC have to pander and at the same time use tokenism. They will need token leaders to appeal to one ethnic group. Once you start along that line you are right back to PNC and PPP hypocrisy.

We all know once people start to work on a common goal, which could be economic development in Guyana’s case, conflict and rivalry will subside in the long run.

Let’s cut the pretense Mr. Ramjattan: the multiethnic government is superior to the multiethnic party.

1. The multi ethnic govt that you propose will consist of the PPP and the PNC. Do you really think that these two parties will ever work together based upon their 50 year old enmity. THose who started the fight have died and yet another generation continues. Neither party favors any form of power sharing (pretending to only when out of power). And we have seen that all their supposed attempts at cooperation (other than for CWC) have collapsed.


2. Given that Demerara is a multi racial region with no dominant ethnic group how do you propose that a zero sum game much as that which exists at the national level will not re occur, and maybe with more deadly consequences at the regional level? TK Indians will not peacefully cede power in the nation's richest region and one where more of them reside than in any other. The Indian population is almost as large as the African.

3. Contrary to your belief an increasing % of the population considers itself to be mixed and together with the Amerindian population, are the fastest growing in Guyana. Both the Indian and African populations are shrinking. So how does your plan accommodate the fact that ethnicity in Guyana is a good deal more complex than you peddle.

We see within the African population undeclared warfare between the black elites and the grass roots. This was seen with the sound beating that Haslyn Parris received in 2001 (and that Hoyte almost got based on reports from people who were on the scene) and with Trotman being evicted from the PNC when the grass roots selected Corbin instead.

Indeed the split of votes between the PNC and GGG in 1994 local govt elections was almost purely based on the class divide, especially in Georgetown. Its only that in 1997 Hammie Green began to play footsie with Cheddi, in his rage against Hoyte, that led to the demise of his party. He was deemed an even bigger traitor than Desi (Persaud) Hoyte. Had Hammie kept his distance from Cheddi the PNC would have become no stronger than the AFC is today.

I am sure that the Indian populations are equally complex.

quote:

Originally posted by TK:

quote:

Ramjattan: Ravi, however, makes the argument that this tyranny of the majority, this elected dictatorship which results in confrontational and violent politics can go away: firstly, in the short run by a temporary shared Executive; and, secondly, in the long run by federalism. These two solutions comprise the more peaceful, fruitful avenues available. This we all know has been his argument from the inception. It is premised, he argues, on the fact that Guyana has an intractable problem – “ethnic/racial factions, a twin Ethnic security dilemma precipitated by our particular constellation of demographics and power resources”.

Federalism and power sharing will not eliminate ethnic rivalry, but it will provide the framework within which the different group can work together. The current Constitution breeds competition for power and alienation. It leads to zero sum outcomes.

The multiethnic party – which Ramjattan supports – will never provide that legally binding framework to work together. Ultimately they in the so-called multiethnic AFC have to pander and at the same time use tokenism. They will need token leaders to appeal to one ethnic group. Once you start along that line you are right back to PNC and PPP hypocrisy.

We all know once people start to work on a common goal, which could be economic development in Guyana’s case, conflict and rivalry will subside in the long run.

Let’s cut the pretense Mr. Ramjattan: the multiethnic government is superior to the multiethnic party.

Economic development or growth is a given.

Rivalry can be good and there can be goal congruence within conflicts.

How would the elections under the present constitution allow for the creation of a multiethnic government? It is most likely the party that presents a multiethnic list of candidates would be able to set up a multiethnic government in event of a victory. It would seem that the AFC is the most logical choice for this outcome.

The word "elected dictatorship" itself is an oxymoron. Both words are diametrically opposite. It appears that those opposed to the government would like them to have the country vote on every decision that has to be made in the normal course of governance. The point of elections is to mandate government to make decisions on its own accord. These buzzwords that the sour grapes keep coming up with is laughable especially since the public keep voting for the PPP.

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
The word "elected dictatorship" itself is an oxymoron. Both words are diametrically opposite.

What is so complex. This is a govt whihc is elected in free and fair elections, only becase its core base is the largest. It then proceeds to govern without any regard for the wishes of, or input from the broad spectrum of Guyanese. Indeed its presently trying to squash those who disagree with them.

quote:

Originally posted by TK:
Finally, I take the opportunity to express, as always, my deepest respect for Elder Kwayana and his work.

Here is Ravi Dev expressing his "deepest respect" to Yusi Kwayana ( Sydney King ). Does Ravi remember it was Sydney King who helped to institutionalise racism in Guyana? King advocated the racial "zoning" of Guyana. How can one pay respect to such a person?

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
The word "elected dictatorship" itself is an oxymoron. Both words are diametrically opposite.

What is so complex. This is a govt whihc is elected in free and fair elections, only becase its core base is the largest. It then proceeds to govern without any regard for the wishes of, or input from the broad spectrum of Guyanese. Indeed its presently trying to squash those who disagree with them.

Nonsense, the broad spectrum of Guyanese gave their consent for the government to make these decisions when they cast their vote at the ballot box. Government can not keep seeking approval of the opposition for every decision, after all they are the leaders and the job of the opposition is to derail the PPP's efforts to make them look like failures for the next elections.

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
Nonsense, the broad spectrum of Guyanese gave their consent for the government to make these decisions when they cast their vote at the ballot box..

How so when over 85% of the non Indians rejected the PPP which only won because they got 95% of the Indian vote?

quote:

Originally posted by caribj:

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
Nonsense, the broad spectrum of Guyanese gave their consent for the government to make these decisions when they cast their vote at the ballot box..

How so when over 85% of the non Indians rejected the PPP which only won because they got 95% of the Indian vote?

I didn't realize that such numbers were published. You seem to have statistical data that is hidden from the rest of us. If you are going by geographical regions then you are even more incorrect. People of all races exist all over Guyana. To extrapulate ficticious information from geographical data is dishonest. Besides even if the majority of Indians voted for Jagdeo then don't they constitute the "broad spectrum" of Guyanese?

quote:

Originally posted by BGurd_See:
I didn't realize that such numbers were published. Besides even if the majority of Indians voted for Jagdeo then don't they constitute the "broad spectrum" of Guyanese?

1. If Indians were 48% of the voters as Vishnu Bisram thought they were this isnt a broad spectrum. It isnt because its one ethnic group, therefore doesnt capture the range of ethnicity that is Guyana. And it isnt because a large group arent included.

2. We know that Indians and Amerindians didnt vote PNC nor AFC as that has been frequently noted. So we can project which race vote dfor which party. There is no way that the PNC and the AFC could have gotten 43% of the votes without the overwhelming majority of mixed and African voters (estimated at about 45% of the votes based on Bisram). Clearly then the overwhelming majority of those who voted against the PPP were African and mixed because the PPP won in most interior locations with just under 40% of the votes so we know they got some Amerindian support (no more than 50%).


So we can extrapolate and I am sure if these estimates are wrong its only by a % point or two.

quote:

TRANSCENDING ETHNIC GRAVITATIONS

??? in Guyana in this generation ? yuh joking