Dear Editor,
I am again compelled to express my views on what I consider to be a fledgling revival of Burnham’s behaviour in Guyana politics and governance.
My observation is adequately supported in these three main areas: the exertion of the government toward freedom of the press, the blatant disregard for the process of parliamentary procedures and misappropriation of taxpayers’ money.
Perhaps many of our memories are faded because we are allowed to see one side of the government – the side they want us to see. We delude ourselves that only physical infrastructure (roads, buildings and a casino) is the ultimate standard to judge improved standard of living. That may be true depending on what audience you are addressing. What is the new standard of living now with the implementation of VAT? But I digress.
Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is the corner stone of a democracy. I am wary of any government who muzzle the institutions that disseminate information. Especially, when the government is not telling the truth and hides pertinent details about a transaction that involves public funds. If the Guyana government cannot see the international attention their actions have gained by targeting one media house by withdrawing advertisements I am confused even further. The government’s action is one rooted in their insecurity and possible repercussions of truthful disclosure to their constituents. In psychology this action is called a “defense mechanism”. It is a natural occurring phenomenon when human beings are challenged with facing the truth.
A free democracy is one where there is freedom of press, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and beliefs, freedom of choice and free from imposition of one’s belief system or faith when discharging the functions of public offices. Government should not interfere with these institutions. Only the free flow of open and honest public discussions will benefit the democracy.
Secondly, the Government has been acting like a dictatorship no different from “The Burnham Style” leadership. A bill passed by the Parliament should be assented to by the president, unless of course, he is willing to exercise his veto powers according to the laws. A decision of exercising executive veto powers must be fully disclosed to the parliament. It is prudent that President Jagdeo explain to parliament his reasons for acting otherwise or exercising his executive veto powers. The President’s actions of non- assent to bills is an exemplification of a “Burnhamite” characteristic.
Lastly, misappropriation of public funds for a private good reminds me of Burnham. Who dared to question Burnham? And therefore, how dare you question Jagdeo? There is no difference in these two styles of leadership. Both their actions are synonymous given the same circumstances. But I must admit, I saw this coming a long time ago.
The PPP Government promised me and all Guyanese in 1992 that they will bring about change. As I recalled, the late President Cheddi Jagan promised that the first thing he would do when elected President is to change the executive powers of the President. In retrospect, it did not suit his political ambitions at the time but neither he nor his successors have the integrity to fulfill that first promise or embark on a new wave of politics for a new Guyana. What we have today is “same old – same old”. So today we have new people under the same laws who have now mastered and perfected Burnham’s rule. I often question: will I ever see a new ideology in Guyanese politics? Will I ever see a government which is not above the law but accountable to it. A government which respects and abides by the laws of the land?
Yours faithfully,
Steve Hemraj
