Dear Editor,
All these years as a Guyanese citizen and witness to several national elections, I am still aggrieved by the rancour that characterizes election campaigns in this country. There might be some defence for the practice of adversarial politics, but I doubt many right-minded, cultured and gracious Guyanese would be happy with the virulent character assassinations and belittling which besmear these campaigns.
From what I observe, and I stand to be corrected, such antagonism seemingly underlines the current campaign strategy of the PPP/C only. There are fulminations about which attorney is associating with drug dealers, and complicit in crimes, to which former PPP/C member has “jumped ship” and become a “hypocrite.” The latter is characterized as a certain brand of disloyalty to one’s “family.”
As stated, under the auspices of adversarial politics, political parties usually denounce one another in an attempt to garner support. At its core though, this practice is an aberration of the civilized debates we witness in educational institutions and progressive societies. A debate, (no different from an election campaign), in the first place, is supposed to be respectful; parties advance their arguments/policies with fervour by emphasizing the deficiencies in the arguments/policies of the other side, yet the entire process is governed by tolerance and decorum. There is no mudslinging, vilification and defamation. Such practices fall only within the parameters of incendiary, retrogressive politics, and sadly that is the approach one of the country’s major political parties (and others before it) is courting.
For too long in Guyana, I have witnessed this festering intolerance which degrades into ad hominem attacks. Individuals are flayed for disagreeing with the policies of other individuals, or organizations, or political parties. To cite the most recent example, Nigel Hughes, the lawyer, has had his character questioned even when the issue the President was addressing was the attorney’s representation of supposed shady individuals. There is no appreciation of a man’s profession as being separate from his personal life.
Then Moses Nagamootoo was labelled a hypocrite for defecting from the PPP/C and betraying his “family.” No doubt the PPP/C would be embittered by this loss knowing Nagamootoo’s popularity, but how different is this reaction from the fabled fox that could no longer acquire the grapes?
Implicitly, when Nagamootoo is accused of abandoning his “family,” the PPP/C is acknowledging that the gentleman is not entitled to his own views, not free to exercise his volition – certainly not without paying a price anyhow. The party is demonstrating that any individual who questions or challenges the policies of the “family” will be treated punitively. Since “family” has psychosocial connotations here, wouldn’t a regular nuclear family be deemed dysfunctional if expects its children not to question its authority? And if a grown child within that family were to depart, for whatever reason, wouldn’t a truly congenial, loving and normal family extend grace rather than censure that member? The PPP/C is implicitly demonstrating that shaming is the weapon of choice for “children” who “jump ship,” that there is little tolerance for variation, and that insularity rather than freedom of expression prevails in that party structure.
Such a method of campaigning might appeal to those with a liking for divisiveness and antagonism, but nothing is more destructive to a civilization. Political parties by their actions or omissions to act model certain behaviours to citizens. Children, in particular, might view such
character assassinations on NCN and internalize that normal human discourse between leaders is vengeful, aggressive and bombastic. They grow to replicate same, and the cycle of nasty rebuke is perpetuated. In the end we will cry foul in relation to the crassness, obnoxiousness and impertinence of young and old alike, yet fail to see that one of the sources of such social fracturing is on the platform of political parties.
My search for a copy of Gecom’s Code of Conduct for political parties in these elections yielded nothing, but it is my sincere hope that somewhere in that document there are ethics governing the actual campaign. Parties, regardless of their constitutional immunity, must display the decency of common respect and tolerance without denigrating those with contrary views.
If voters are discerning enough, they would surely reject those platforms which disparage, for such practices are the festering sores of bygone years. Those were the years of polarized, hateful speeches and vindictiveness, and I implore political parties, especially the PPP/C, to exercise a more cultivated, urbane approach in their campaign.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
