Dear Editor,
Guyanese political discourse needs a new group of thinkers and writers if a culture of democracy is to prevail and, without which the past shall continue to hijack the future.
I belong to the ’80s generation, that lost generation; that is, one which never had a strong voice in the political affairs of our country and one which, nurtured under the weight of Mr Forbes Burnham and his friend, Dr Jagan, produced no political figure who truly speaks in our tongue. I am a writer and I ought to know something about discourse. A quarter-century later, my generation is still an outcast in Guyanese political discourse, which remains dominated by people with ties to the PPP, PNC, and WPA, who patrol the landscape of political discourse vigilantly, a few keen on being anointed as kingmakers across eras.
Indeed, political discourse serves little purpose to my generation because old arguments are being recycled repeatedly by essentially the same activists and politicians who are, on occasions, proud to remind the public of their time in the trenches. The WPA and PPP, especially Mr Clement Rohee, are famous for this. Often, figures tied to the 3 parties engage in publicized quarrels and bouts of retributions, with a clear disconnect from a public issue. Often, they deliver scandal for politics, and some are steeped in a belief that a celebration of their colleagues’ contributions amount to political discourse. Often, others speak of getting “credit” or need for an apology; trademarks of disputes not discourse.
Guyana is a small country but it produces a staggering, mind-boggling volume of political literature. Yet, after much writing and tit-for-tat quarrels, the state of our political discourse is that of a drowning sailor at night reaching for a star. A tit-for-tat old quarrel consumes room for diligent discussions of topical issues related to the future; it leaves little room for new ideas and it cripples any viable participation of unfamiliar, young people in political discourse who are left to struggle to find a sustainable and respected voice, publicly.
When the AFC was born (as a new political voice), a WPA figure accused its leadership of either occupying or abducting political space created by the WPA. This kind of thinking kills newness and it is a product of bygone generations. A young voice may say something new 10 times and no one listens to him or her, but if someone from these 3 parties utters it once, it becomes newsworthy. This kind of manner is imperial, and it is a product of bygone generations.
Recently, Mr David Hinds, a WPA figure, said the PPP had a “split” in 1956-57. I wrote and refuted this; Mr. Hinds thereafter repeated his opinion but without responding to what I wrote, and never publicly explaining why or how he discovered a 1956-57 PPP split, when for 50 years everyone saw 1 split in 1955. Right or wrong, my opinion was ignored outright, because I am simply a writer with no ties to the 3 parties. Yes, I am a writer and I know about discourse. That was not discourse; that was disrespect. It was imperial.
But disrespect is not surprising. The ’80s has been shaped by political disrespect and 25 years later, the powers that be in political discourse are yet to dare ask for our opinions, or to write “papers,” or invite us to speak at conferences. Those spaces have been inherently hijacked by imperials with ties to the 3 parties. They invite, listen, and applaud themselves. Clearly, the failed attitudes which have helped to corrupt the old political culture have been imported into the realm of political discourse, from the written to oral.
Supposed ‘academic’ papers are replete with disingenuous arguments and positions held, unchallenged. Worse, despite years of prolific writings, essentially the same handful of themes has been offered mantra-like. Even sources used are abused. In short, an internal circular channel was created in which minimal new material is examined or created.
Likewise, political discourse on TV is a thing repeatedly trapped in the past. A very important political TV show is one hosted by Dr Grantley Waldron, but its shortcoming is that the usual guests are from bygone eras. Recently, Mr Tacuma Ogunseye, a known WPA activist, wrote about watching Mr Donald Ramotar (PPP) and Mr Winston Murray (PNC). This is so typical; we have 2 persons whose names made the news 25 years ago. A quarter century later, while Mr Murray ought to be saluted for resigning from a top post in the PNC, what can Mr Donald Ramotar possibly say to improve Guyana, really, in this day and age?
Worse, Mr Ogunseye, another quarter-century political figure, takes to the press to set history straight, and in doing so demonstrated how the same old tune is being whistled by the same old voices from the same old past. This is political discourse in Guyana. This shows how the future is hijacked by the past, and how the visions of people of my generation, now with their own young families, are being shaped by politicians from another time.
A better example is the Lusignan tragedy. Despite it being a tragedy of our time, names from the past emerged to make news: Hamilton Green, Eusi Kwayana, Oliver Hinckson, and Father Malcolm Rodrigues. This shows that something serious is lacking.
Obviously, political elders, etc, refuse to step down and move aside; thus, young people have to become more involved to help unsaddle Guyana’s political discourse from the clutches in which it has been trapped.
Yours faithfully,
Rakesh Rampertab
