Keeping Slim Hope Alive

by Carl Franklin

Kaieteur News’ (KN) editorial of 2/4/06 proffers a brilliant theory that describes what’s wrong with Guyana. Though the theory offers hope in that it recognises a five-step descent to sub-human behaviour, I believe that Guyana has long passed the stage of “deindividuation,” the final stage before sub-human behaviour steps in. And it apparently occurred with lightning speed.

For the benefit of readers and the sake of clarity, I quote the paraphrased thesis on deindividuation from KN editorial:

“Parties may also begin to deindividuate persons from the opposing side. Through deindividuation, persons come to be seen as members of a category or group rather than as individuals. This state of mind makes it easier for parties to take more severe measures against their opponents and to view them as less than fully human. In some cases, parties humiliate their enemies to make them appear less than human, and thus further justify their degradation. This process of dehumanization makes any moral norms against harming other human beings seem irrelevant. Those excluded from moral norms can be viewed simply as inferior or as evil, perverted, or criminal. Harsh and violent action not only becomes psychologically plausible, but also may seem necessary. There is a disengagement of morals and restraints against harming or exploiting certain “kinds” of people are reduced. This can lead to severe violence, human rights violations, sometimes even genocide.”

As I indicated earlier, I believe that what has been described above has already happened in Guyana. The PPP split in 1955 over individual differences and by 1962 we were faced with a riot whose hallmark was the focus on group/race affiliation rather than on individual attributes.

Things have not changed since. A cursory glance at our newspapers and honest conversations with Guyanese will quickly lend credence to this view.

People only seem to be outraged when a member of their group is affected by crime or other misfortune. It’s as if people hold their emotions in check until the race or affiliation of a victim or perpetrator is known; then, and only then, emotions are turned on.

Thus we seemingly live in a nation where people are completely racialised.  Yes, even the very notion of right and wrong has been racialised; justice has been racialised; fairness has been racialised. And this racialisation, this race consciousness, has completely snubbed out any effort to develop a national consciousness. Nothing seems to warrant our collective or national outrage. We just do not feel each other’s pain and suffering.

As the theory suggests, and I concur, our nation cannot long endure as an entity under this state of affairs. I’m not so sure what can be done to reverse this situation, but I’m sure, on this specific issue of crime, there are actions that can be engaged or avoided to help prevent further deterioration of our national situation.

First, the government and opposition should be prepared to express disgust over all crimes or just shut up. They cannot be seen to be pandering to one group. Yes, they cannot be teary-eyed and loud about one situation and dry-eyed and quiet about another. Second, the media ought to be very judicious about the type of letters and comments they choose to publish or broadcast in the immediate aftermath of a killing such as Waddell’s.  Statements of justification for such murders should either not be published or should be accompanied by an equal amount or number of statements of condemnation of such murders. Third, citizens must recognise they are each other’s keepers and that perpetrators of crime do not discriminate.

These actions may not yield immediate dividends, but they’ll help to keep the slimmest of our hopes alive.

Observations and Advice for the Campaign Trail

by Carl Franklin

Many political observers believe our nation’s worsening social, economic and political situation may force Guyanese voters, for the first time since 1953, to vote on issues rather than by race when electing their leaders during this year’s general elections. Consequently, observers have called on the opposition to craft a campaign that would focus on economic and social issues rather than on race, which is universally acknowledged as the major cause of our nation’s problems.

Given my agreement with the call for a focus on issues, I offer some observations and advice for the campaign trail.

First, there is nothing new or revolutionary about the call for candidates to focus on issues in the hope that voters will vote based on issues rather than on race. Despite the indisputable evidence of appeals for race-based voting on their part, both the PPP and the PNC have routinely employed the Campaign 101 principle of appealing for issues-based votes.

Second, voters will not necessarily be impressed with just any issue or idea other than race, particularly because all the parties will be talking about issues and ideas. Therefore, voters will want to know exactly why they should vote differently. Thus, voters will have to be told that they cannot trust messengers who are promising to undo conditions that they have had the power to undo for more than 50 years, but have instead chosen to perpetuate through their steadfast refusal to set up frameworks, procedures and institutions that would give voters the confidence needed to entrust their and their children’s future to better qualified and more competent persons outside their race or incompetent party.

Third, candidates should not immediately assume they know what is best for voters. Different people have different needs that are dictated by different worldviews and areas of residence. What is considered a major priority in one place or in one family may turn out to be a minor priority in another place or in another family. So the voters must be consulted in order to determine their real needs and priorities. It must never be forgotten that some people do not view improving their economic condition as their number one priority. In the last U.S. presidential elections, many poor African-Americans voted for George Bush because he promised to ban marriage between homosexuals. They were not impressed by John Kerry’s message of increased economic opportunities. To those persons, the religious imperative was more important.

Fourth, parties cannot afford to delay crafting and communicating their messages. It was Shakespeare who said, “There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.” If it is truly believed that there is currently a sentiment for change in our nation, then the work to effect that change must begin immediately (it should have already been in full flow). Chosen methods and strategies for getting out the identified messages should be put to use without delay. It must be understood that this will be no easy task, for efforts will have to be directed at every village and town. The early bird will catch the worm. Remember, the elections can be held before August.

Fifth, (and this probably would be repudiated because of our past experiences) charismatic personalities are needed to lead the way. The Stabroek News recently reported that though the government may not be scoring points with the populace, President Jagdeo’s personal appeal has not waned. I believe we must face the reality that charismatic figures are best suited to effect changes in hearts and minds in an environment like ours. Some think of Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan and believe that charisma is anathema. But why not think of Walter Rodney, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Mahatma Gandhi? Yes, there are charismatic people who are altruistic to the bone.

Sixth, campaigns have to be carefully planned, with unfailing attention to the prevailing socio-economic conditions and their contributory factors, as well as a full understanding of the message and capabilities of the opponent. The opponent’s capabilities and messages must be countered. It is routine for professional sports team to go into a game (campaign) with a game-specific plan. The plan considers the team’s players, the opponent’s players and the weather and field conditions (socio-economic conditions). Each of these factors will affect the team’s execution of its plan at various stages of the game. Teams even consider which referee/umpire/judge (media) will officiate (cover) the game and the impact of the crowd (voters). It should be no different in a well-run political campaign.

Seventh, victory will not be won merely by drafting the best plans, which, apart from being cognizant of the existing conditions, should be focused on exposing or exploiting the weaknesses of the opponent. Victory is ultimately dependent on how the best plans are executed. Committed, disciplined, team-oriented players will be needed for the execution phase. Careful attention has to be paid to each operative to ensure that he/she is not hindering the effective execution of the plans. If anyone is deemed to be a hindrance, a substitution or a reduced role may be necessary, as is done on sports teams. However, potential problems in execution must be identified before game day. This is ideally done during practice (brainstorming and devil’s advocate) sessions.

Eighth, victory is not assured until the elections results are declared. So no one should be carried away by reports of the voters’ discontent with the government. Voters may be discontented with the government, but that discontentment does not automatically translate into a preference for another government.

The main point is this, the door to the halls of power stands ajar, and it can be forced off its hinges by urgently delivered issues-oriented messages.

Foiling the Invaders

by Carl Franklin

I mark the conclusion of 2005 and celebrate the beginning of 2006 by making another appeal for an end to the race politics that has left our country bereft of any real hope of substantial development anytime soon.

As I thought about the most dramatic way to communicate my appeal in the hope of addressing the feelings of vengeance that underlie our race politics, two resonant observations continually crossed my mind. The first was Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave us blind and toothless.”

The second was my take on George Santayana’s, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” I believe those who remember and live in the past are condemned to repeat its worst aspects. I should point out that “the past” in this article refers to the last 55 years of our nation’s history.

Our government is already blind and toothless, so I am not worrying that much about them. My concern is with the voters–the eyes and dentures of our politicians–without whom our politicians would be powerless to indulge their penchant for vengeance and thereby keep the worst aspects of our past alive for the wrong reasons.

We are at the proverbial crossroads in Guyana. We should either remember the past only as a reminder of its destructive effects on our nation or we should simply forget about it. We cannot afford to reprise the worst aspects of our past, which has never really left us.

Below, I reproduce the first stanza from our Song of the Republic by Cleveland W. Hamilton:

From Pakaraima’s peaks of pow’r
To Courentyne’s lush sands,
Her children pledge each faithful hour
To guard Guyana’s lands.
To foil the shock of rude invader
Who’d violate her earth,
To cherish and defend forever
The State that gave them birth.

Are we true to these words? Are we ensuring that our politicians stay true to these words? Do we realise that Guyanese politicians, not foreign invaders, are violating our earth? Are we prepared to foil our fellow Guyanese who invade our bottom houses, street corners, churches, temples, and mosques with their destructive race messages?

I say that it is high time we set about foiling the invaders.

We can do this by insisting on the promotion of a society in which good character as evidenced by integrity is valued above the “right” physical characteristic as evidenced by hair texture as a necessary qualification for public office; by insisting on a society in that respect is earned through goodwill towards all rather than through goodwill towards some; and by promoting a society in which merit is given precedence over connections in the awarding of jobs and contracts.

We must also insist on the fulfillment of the promise of a full and functioning democracy. Thus we must demand a functioning framework for inclusion of appropriate persons and groups in the decision-making process of our nation, as well as a functioning framework that allows for a full accounting for all expenditure of monies undertaken in our name and supposedly for our benefit.

We must not settle for mediocrity. The benign must not be allowed to become malignant or the exception be allowed to become the rule. So we must repudiate attempts to measure our economic, social and political accomplishments by what obtained up until 1992 or by any other politically convenient yardstick. We must always demand accomplishments that are appropriate to our time and circumstances and to the resources expended.

Guyanese must always remember that Guyana has been entrusted to all of us, and that it is in our collective interest to ensure our nation’s well-being. Consequently, we have to insist that the politicians we elect and delegate to achieve this goal serve in our nation’s best interests and not their or our selfish interests. This is the only way we can avoid the common destruction that awaits us, as well as avoid passing to posterity a bequest that even we would refuse.

I believe this generation of voters, beginning in 2006, is best positioned to rise to the task before us. No other has been this qualified to promote and implement the political changes our nation so desperately needs. A close look at the demographics of our population will confirm why.

I’ll use CIA estimates instead of the recently released census numbers because of the readily available demographics numbers. According to estimates contained in CIA- The World Factbook on Guyana’s July 2005 projected population, just over 70 percent, or 546,395, of Guyana’s population was born after 1955. That means only 30 percent of our population was born before 1955. And this 30 percent includes the 5 percent, or 39,000, of the total Guyanese population that is 65 years or over.

The CIA report also estimates Guyana’s military-age personnel– persons between the ages of 18-49– at 344,062 during 2005, meaning that the vast majority of our voters were also born after 1955 and have thus experienced the rule of both the PNC and the PPP.

This means that this group has had to bear the brunt of the effects of our politicians’ attempts to avenge every wrong, settle every score and reciprocate every slight. These voters know these experiences have not been good for them or their children. This is exactly why they have the credibility to declare that enough is enough.

Valerie Rodway in the fourth stanza of her Guyana The Free presciently declares:

With purpose and vigour we’ll carve our own fate
Unmoved by distraction, prejudice and hate,
Together we’ll strive for our new nation’s goal,
Inspired by goodwill, a kinship of soul.

My wish is that Guyanese of goodwill in every village, every ward, every town and every county will make this stanza an election-campaign cry. Their common sufferings have indeed created “a kinship of soul.” So they deserve a new nation.

We Have to Stop Embracing the Fire Rage

by Carl Franklin

When I was ten years old, my parents got into an abusive quarrel with a neighboring couple over an issue whose nature is now not that clear to me. But I believe it was over our dog’s constant intrusion onto the couple’s property.

About a week after their quarrel, and I can’t recall who initiated it, a stare-down interspersed with vile name-calling and rock throwing erupted between my neighbors’ children on the one hand and me and my brothers and sisters on the other.

The fire rage, as we say in Guyana, had been picked up. A full-fledged inter-family feud was on.

To ensure that no quarters were given, I made sure that my barely understandable three-year-old brother learned to pronounce the “r”, “s”, and “f” words as best as his immature faculties would allow him to. Even the neighbors’ kids found his attempts worthy of laughter.

Anyway, about three years later, we, the kids, were talking again. The name-calling, rock throwing and stare-down ceased. We had abandoned the fire rage and have been on good terms since.

Does this story in whole or part sound familiar? Well, I’m not thinking about your own inter-family quarrels. I’m thinking about the ongoing 50-year-old quarrel between the PPP and the PNC.

When a power-struggle precipitated by ideological differences between Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan caused a split in the PPP in February of 1955, the resulting fire rage was quickly embraced with serious and later deadly earnestness by supporters of the two now-deceased men.

In the immediate aftermath of the split, loyalties were pledged and commitments won based primarily on ideological grounds and the personal charisma of Mr. Burnham and Mr. Jagan. Race was not that important.

However, race became the primary basis upon which support was sought and won over the next seven years, culminating in the frightening racially motivated firestorms that enveloped our country between 1962 and 1964.

I am not unmindful of the facts and circumstances that made embracing the fire rage both understandable and necessary in the distant past. I even acknowledge that the PPP and the PNC, which Mr. Burnham’s faction of the PPP later christened itself, were both at one time the proverbial shelters in the time of storms for their respective supporters.

However the storms have long since passed. There have not been wholesale politically motivated killings, beatings, arsons and forced relocations since that terrible period.

Yes, complaints about lost careers and livelihoods and jobs and contracts denied have been registered against every government since those dark days of 1962-1964, but we have to stop embracing the fire rage spawned by the split of 1955 if we hope to lift our country from its current depressed state and help assure that there will never be a repeat of what happened between 1962-1964.

Other nation has experienced worst and have since moved on. We cannot tarry in this situation much longer.

The sunshine of hope beckons. And we must heed its call.

We can begin our response by refusing to use race-derogatory words solely for the purpose of hurting others. “Coolie” and “Blackman” are two such words that immediately come to mind. The government can do its part by curbing its practice of disproportionately expending funds for projects in areas inhabited by its supporters.

Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese must both understand that with populations of less than 400,000 respectively, neither group will be able to prosper or live in peace in a divided Guyana. We need each other, badly.

I know that not everyone will heed the call of the sunshine of hope. Some will continue to believe the now-broken cup (PPP) and the now-withered palm tree (PNC) are all they need to provide the water and shelter necessary to fight the effects of the sweltering heat caused by their continued embrace of the fire rage.

I firmly believe otherwise.

The parents in my true story offered absolutely no protection from the name-calling, stares and rocks that were thrown their children’s way. The children’s physical and emotional well-being was only assured after they abandoned the fire rage. My mother also told me of the relief she felt after she made up with my neighbor’s wife after the husband had died.

But for the racial divide, Guyana would have achieved much more than it has over the past fifty years. Even the most earnest among the embracers of the fire rage have conceded this. Yet, the rage continues to be nurtured year after year, election cycle after election cycle, whispered in bottom house meetings and places of worship.

I pray that we will purpose to make next August’s Emancipation celebration a time of true celebration of deliverance from the rage that has kept our country underdeveloped for fifty years.

Further, given that we now have choices that were not previously available to us, I urge a determined and optimistic attempt at something new.