Dear Editor,
I recently saw the Freddie Kissoon Column (August 6, 2010). I partially responded through my weekly piece in the Sunday Chronicle of 8/8/2010. Nevertheless, I want to finish the job today in a letter, which would also include yesterday’s main points.

Let me start off by reproducing in part what I penned in yesterday’s article, and then I will add the finishing touches. I present the President’s full contextual quote, since it was on the missing list in the Freddie Kissoon Column. This is what I penned in my weekly piece.

“In fact, recently, President Bharrat Jagdeo, in addressing political openness (Stabroek News, 8/3/2010), quite correctly noted that: “Well first of all there is political divide and in most societies (sic) you will have that because that’s the competitive nature of politics. The people in opposition want to get in government and the people in government want to stay in government so you will always have conflicts.

One side needs to make the other side look bad and the other side needs to talk about what they are doing and you are not going to change that and I am not going to change that. In fact this will never change until the nature of politics changes so that political divide will always be there in terms of the division using ethnicity to divide our people.”

Not surprisingly, the Kissoon column last Friday berated the President for making this comment on the political divide. Nevertheless, President Jagdeo was quite in order, as he provided a constitutional conception of democracy. And the President is in good company on this matter.

Schumpeter (1974) was largely responsible for advancing this line of thinking where democracy is seen as a continuous competition between different political leaders; including the likelihood of tossing out bad leaders (Popper 1988). Plamenatz (1973) argued that this line of thinking really is free competition for power, and that this competition will work well when people observe the constitutional arrangements, as freedom of speech, association, communication, etc. In Guyana, we witness daily an abuse of some of these freedoms.

Let me return to the Kissoon column. This competition for power in Guyana, that is, those who want to get into power versus those who want to sustain their power, does not function within a vacuum, as the Kissoon column would want people to believe. Even so, the Kissoon column misguidedly presents the political competition in Guyana in vacuity. I am sure many Guyanese may not be happy with their politicians. But to suggest or even imply that the battle for political power takes place on a battlefield where the masses have no input, or that well-meaning politicians fail to embrace people’s interests, is a stretch to say the least. If this were true, then Guyana has no constitutional arrangements in place, and there is no constitutional conception of democracy.

But this is not the case here in Guyana. Perhaps, some institutional arrangements require some modifications, but they are functioning; and, indeed, these constitutional arrangements, like in so many other countries, are a work in progress. The fact that there is the Kissoon column is testimony to the presence of constitutional arrangements; where the column can present a multiplicity of opinions, thanks to constitutional democracy and its accessory, participatory democracy.

What’s more, the Kissoon column indicated that Jagdeo’s configuration did not include political rivalry tearing society apart. Nonetheless, this political rivalry really is integral to a competition for power that impacts society; and a competition for power, invariably, may produce a political divide. This is the nature of the ‘competition’ beast. Moreover, political rivalry producing this infamous political divide is quite healthy, if we use conventional rules of engagement.

In any event, the President’s notion of ‘political divide’ among various political factions, by definition, implies conflict and tension impacting society; if there is no rivalry, there may be no divide. For this reason, political divide does incorporate the political rivalry matrix. How then could the Kissoon column report that ‘political rivalry’ tearing society apart is on the missing list in the President’s notion of ‘political divide’? I will have more to say on this matter.

The constitutional arrangements within Guyana’s fragile democratic context drive this competition for power, produce political rivalry, and create a political divide. For this reason, we need to emphasize the prevalence of Guyana’s politicians’ tenuous or not so tenuous constitutional links with the masses, civil society, etc., vis-à-vis the electoral system, parliament, the judicial system, including other constitutional arrangements.

Perhaps, those entities like the Kissoon column need to address more how we can modify institutional arrangements to end abuse of press freedoms, among others than to give the daily grind on who should rule.”

And the President is not trading any politics of morality, any politics of hope, and any politics of change, with the politics of pragmatism; his decision model embraces morality, hope, and change, among other parameters that will create a better life.

In any event, the opposition to pragmatism happens because there is a misguided view that intelligence is infallible and that people could use this intelligence to institute morality, bring hope, and effect change. Nevertheless, there are limitations to intelligence. Intelligence could catapult people to bad situations, and even to better ones, given the conditions under which people make choices. In this sense, intelligence, in Deweyan’s vernacular, is limited power, but it is critical.

And there are these limitations of intelligence, too, on human development through people’s ebeddedness in nature. Look, we cannot pin all our hopes on human intelligence for the betterment of life. For these reasons, Dewey argues for pragmatism while at the same time recognizing the limited power of intelligence.

Additionally, if the Kissoon Column is correct that former President Burnham through his intelligence sustained African hegemony through Indian subordination and fraudulent elections, why did not Hoyte follow suit with his intelligence on that matter of political survival? Hoyte did not because the conditions were different with the end of the Cold War; end of the ‘Cold War’ implications and considerations superseded Hoyte’s intelligence in the making of political choices at that time. Again, we see the limitations of intelligence ‘screwed up’ the making of a decision that is sustained African hegemony to which the Freddie Kissoon Column referred.
Look, let us get real here. Any decision-maker tries to formulate a strategy generating favoured outcomes through  (1) itemizing all doable alternative strategies (search), (2) shaping all outcomes (analysis), and (3) evaluating outcomes (choice). Look, neoclassical theory supposes that the decision-maker can effect each of these steps instantly, accurately, and costlessly (Godoi, 2009). Simon, nonetheless, contends that perfect optimization is not achievable in the real world. For this reason, Simon introduced the concept of bounded rationality for the real world whereby we try to obtain things rationally, but unable to do so, make a satisficing decision, a decision that is ‘good enough’ (Parker, Bruin, and Fischhoff 2007). Thus, there has to be some room for manoeuvrability, call it what you like, call it pragmatism. But let us create a better life. That is the bottom line.

Yours faithfully,
Prem Misir