Dear Editor,
There seems to be a furore over the allocation of funds for “scrutineers” in the current house to house registration exercise. I am trying to understand what they mean when they keep sayng that the money is being given at the “State’s benevolence” or the “President’s benevolence”. Doesn’t the term “benevolence” mean an act of charity done out of the goodness of one’s heart, mind or spirit?
The State is the Government and Mr Jagdeo is the President, both elected to govern on behalf of the people, right? And the money they are talking about is the people’s money collected from taxes, right? So how can the President hand out money to the Opposition like charity and imply that they should be grateful and shut up? Is this the way the political system operates in a democracy”
The act of “benevolence” is more associated with the act of a dictator who views himself as the “good shepherd” with absolute power which he exercises in the best interest of the people, while demanding from them absolute submissiveness.
This is not how a democratically elected Government and President should act.
In the first instance the allocation of funds for “scrutineers” should have been processed through parliament, moreso because of the history of questioning the fairness of the election process. That having not been done, then it is reasonable to look to the courts for guidance and direction.
But please, no democratically elected president should allocate funds to such an important exercise as House to House Registration on the basis of his “benevolence”. Guyana’s fledgling democracy is too fragile to withstand any semblance of the ruling political party trying to give itself an unfair advantage over the others.
Neither should the Head of the State’s information service justify such presidential benevolence lest it be misconstrued as an attempt to cast the Head of State as governing within a “personality cult”.
The act of benevolence should be reserved for orphanages and other charities.
Yours faithfully
Shawn Mangru