Every harsh word should be used to describe the logic of a letter by Kamal Ramkarran (SN, March 9) that justifies his father’s (Mr Ralph Ramkarran) disclosure that the constitution makes facility for Guyanese who live outside to vote in national elections. Two major absurdities reside in that letter. First is his contention that there was no motive for the disclosure. His father merely and mechanically pointed out a fact that exists. Secondly, he gives what I consider the worst analogy in semantics, polemics, epistemology and everything else you can name to strengthen his argument. He wrote that if you say, “That is a donkey,” then you merely pointed out a fact. It doesn’t mean you are interested in the donkey.
Let us discuss the second item first. At the conscious level, action and motive are always connected. So was there a motive for Ralph Ramkarran saying that overseas voting is in the constitution? The answer is yes. And this is because everything has context. This is where the donkey example comes in.
No human being would say “that is a donkey” without a context. In Guyana, no two persons walking down the street would say; “there is a donkey.” This is because such an animal is very commonplace in Guyana. But the other would turn to his/her friend and say, “that is an orangutan.” The reason that person would point that out is because Guyana does not have orangutans and he/she wants the person to know what an orangutan is. We call that ‘context.’ Many parents, including this writer, have used the very sentence Kamal Ramkarran published in his letter, “[There] is a donkey.” We have said that to our little baby when strolling in the Botanic Gardens. The context is that we want our kid to know what a donkey is. It meant therefore that the action of pointing out the donkey had a motive, and the motive was to let your child know what type of animal that is.
Mr Kamal Ramkarran then is on to an absurd argument when he made that analogy because everything has context. If we accept the inevitability of context, then his father’s utterance about the constitutional right to vote for those who live abroad could be contextualized. What Mr Kamal Ramkarran could argue is that he didn’t see the conscious motive from his father, but there has to be one. If he insists that there is none on his father’s part then this is serious business for a man who wants to be the President of Guyana. Finally, no one should accept Mr Kamal Ramkarran’s explanation. His father is a person who wants to be the President of Guyana and whether at the conscious or subconscious level, he evaluated in his mind that there is a greater chance of him becoming president if he represents the PPP because overseas voting may favour the PPP.
I am elated, and I repeat, elated that Mr Ralph Ramkarran’s politics is being assessed by many today. Long ago, I stood alone in analyzing his weaknesses and faults as a politician. They are now coming to the surface. Let me say boldly, he is the last person on my list from all the parties who will contest for the presidency. This is not because of any emotional or personal reason. I have looked at many angles of his political behaviour over the years and what I saw many did not see until now.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
