Recently, Newt Gingrich criticised President Obama for being too nuanced in his policy-making and Fareed Zakaria, on one of his CNN programmes, rightly wondered why being nuanced should be criticised. Of course, anyone who peruses our political landscape can have no such complaint. In general, political subtleties appear foreign to us and history seems to inform that the psychological and practical appreciation of the need for nuanced approaches only gradually develops where there are credible institutional checks on the use of power. Outside of the recent electoral stalemate, such checks have largely been absent in Guyanese politics, as a result of which our politics is epitomised by the vulgar use of power.
Even though my focus here is upon the PPP/C, make no mistake: notwithstanding the general grandstanding, this mindset pervades the entire society. The PPP/C regime does not like to compromise and until recently has not constitutionally been in a position where it had to do so. Its apparent unwillingness/incapacity to engage in debate on issues is clearly seen in, among other things, its inability to deal with our capital city; collective bargaining; the recent quarrel over the speakership of the National Assembly; the national cricketing dispute and now the dismissal of Mr. Frederick Kissoon. Thus, it has become a mantra in opposition circles that to get the government to make concessions it has to be threatened with “mo fiah,” street demonstrations, etc. Indeed, even with the new parliamentary dispensation, the continuing opposition street demonstrations are premised on the belief that it will take more than a shift in parliamentary power to make the regime compromise. What is extremely sad is that, never mind that we are in the 21st century, the government appears psychologically incapable of taking any but the easier and cruder path, even when that route is suboptimal, makes it look ridiculous and loses it support.
Take the present approach to Freddie Kissoon. My opinion of Mr. Kissoon’s writings has been given on many occasions and is too well known to detain us here. I believe that he has persistently, unjustifiably and on occasions maliciously attacked persons without any basis in fact or logic. But this is not unusual in places where free and competitive media exist: the majority of human-kind is prone to gossip and personalisations. Mr. Kissoon’s attacks may on occasion be defamatory but it is the duty of the government to establish modern libel laws and a legal system capable of implementing those laws in an effective and timely manner and it is for those who do not care to quarrel with Mr. Kissoon in the press to take him to court. Indeed, former president Jagdeo has sought legal redress, although he appears to have done so without sensibly assessing the political ramifications of his actions and this is perhaps but another side of the incapacity to think subtly and many-sidedly.
This aside, sometimes Mr. Kissoon hits the nail on the head and even where he does not and is simply bruising to the regime and its friends, they have tended to overreact, which only gives him more to write about and make his contributions more “juicy” and sought after! The regime’s hostility helped to place him squarely in the opposition camp and regardless of how wrong he is on many occasions, he has done more than most to raise awareness among the masses about governmental wrongdoing. To solidify his position, he joined the opposition political platform at the last elections and would probably have to literally commit murder before people would feel justified in walking away from him now that he is in jeopardy.
Added to this, what the regime has done to Freddie Kissoon is laughable, leaving one in no doubt that its action was strictly political.
Mr. Kissoon retired from the university last year and as is normal with retirees, he applied for and was given a contract for a year which ends in about August 2012. The university administration has now terminated that contract with, from what I can gather, the claim that for the twenty-six years that he has been working with the institution, Mr. Kissoon has been incompetent or/and has little, if any, refereed publications to his credit. Even if we accept the university’s position on incompetence and absence of publications, as Mr. Kissoon was employed with the university for nearly three decades, his shortcomings must have been known to the administration for some considerable time. To have given him a contract in spite of this reeks of incompetence and if, as some suggest, the contract was offered in error, then the incompetence is compounded!
Had one been living in a situation of adequate governmental checks and balances, simple commonsense would have indicated that however much Mr. Kissoon was viewed as a thorn in the side, it would be better to wait the few months until his contract came to its natural end and simply not renew it. The immediate termination of his services, particularly in the context of a dire shortage of lecturers, coupled with the willingness (no doubt in recognition of the lack of any ground to do otherwise) to pay Mr. Kissoon until the end of the contract period, can have only one explanation: that the dismissal is rooted in political bias. Those responsible must have known that no one would believe otherwise, yet they persisted.
In the different and more nuanced political environment, which I hope will develop as the present political arrangements mature and are constitutionalised, the university administration would have recognised that it is always useful in the context of public management to avoid the accusation of bias and that a decision on the renewal of a contract of someone with the profile of Mr. Kissoon should be reached by some patently unbiased process. As it stands, Mr. Kissoon did absolutely nothing to deserve being so unceremoniously removed from the classroom. The regime did what it did simply because it believed it could!
