Dear Editor,
Mr Wesley Kirton is simply wrong in stating that the PNC was “Not an illegal government” (SN Sep 10). The PNC was not duly elected except in December 1964, and even that election was troubling. As a student of international relations, international law, and diplomacy, I can safely say that being accorded diplomatic recognition (international legitimacy) and being allowed to participate in international forums (Forbes Burnham at Cancun with Ronald Reagan in 1982) does not mean that a regime is “legal.” General Pinochet (Chile) and other dictators were at the White House but that does not mean he was the legal ruler of Chile. There were many regimes (in Chile, Venezuela, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, PNC Guyana, etc) up until the early 1990s that were illegal (not chosen according to legally established rules) but accorded recognition (legitimacy) from the world community. That was the realpolitk of the era.
The regimes could not be undone (removed) and/or made legal. So the international community accepted them. One, therefore, must not confuse international recognition with legality. A government can be legitimate (accepted because of international norms and traditions) but not legal (following the law). Dr Rupert Roopnaraine, Eusi Kwayana, Dr David Hinds, Dr Jagan, Prof Paul Tennassee, Dr Clive Thomas, etc, described the regime as illegal. If I am wrong in so describing the regime, then so would they be.
I and others used the word ‘illegal‘ to describe the regime because it was not elected according to the spirit of the law. It is a known fact that the PNC rigged all elections in Guyana when it ran the government, and that in and of itself made it an illegal regime as the regime violated the basic laws of Guyana. All credible literature (tons of it) points to the PNC as an illegal, and by extension an ‘illegitimate,‘ regime.
Some writers use the words illegitimate and illegal interchangeably to mean the same thing, though they may not have the exact same meaning – in law and in international relations ‘legitimacy’ is distinguished from ‘legality’ (as mentioned above). In general, if a government is deemed illegitimate, it can be also be described as illegal, even though it was never deemed illegal by the courts. Mr Kirton claims no court ever ruled that the elections were rigged. Is he kidding? Which court or judge would have ruled against Burnham or Hoyte on rigged elections?
The usage of illegal and illegitimate does not matter in Mr Kirton’s world because he contends the PNC regime was legal and legitimate. For him, the regime was duly constituted, internationally recognized and courts did not rule against it. That is a naïve understanding of international relations as well as the tenets of law. People accepted the PNC government out of fear. Those who opposed the regime were dealt with through violence (Dr Walter Rodney, Father Darke, Koama, Dublin, etc, found that out). Kirton should read the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes and German philosopher Max Weber and other experts on legitimacy and law.
Diplomatic norms allow for the acceptance and recognition of government even if they are not legal. Burnham and Hoyte were recognized as the presidents of Guyana but they were not legally elected. Not because foreign governments recognized a regime means the regime was legal. Foreign governments (US, Canada, England, etc.) worked with brutal fascist oppressive regimes because of practical politics. Yes, such recognition provided legitimacy to the regimes but morally and ethically speaking and even according to the laws of many of those countries, the regimes were illegal. Many dictators such as the Shah of Iran, Hoyte, Zia ul Haq (Pakistan), Pinochet, etc, visited the White House (some several times) but it does not mean they were legally elected. The US recognized and accepted Burnham and Hoyte (and other dictators) to keep out the “communist” PPP. After communism collapsed in 1990, the US issued warnings to Hoyte about rigging future elections – eventually leading to the end of illegal rule in October 1992 when free and fair elections were restored.
Mr Kirton made reference to my polling (that has no bearing or relevance to the issue under discussion). I issue the same challenge to Mr Kirton that I once gave to Mr Freddie Kissoon – provide evidence that the polls I conducted are “fake” and I shall pay his costs to conduct an annual poll in Guyana and cease and desist from polling.
Furthermore, if Mr Kirton provides irrefutable evidence that the PNC never rigged elections in Guyana, as he contends, I will instantly stop all my writing and polling in Guyana. No attempt at revisionism will succeed in changing the fact that the PNC rigged elections in Guyana and its rule was illegal.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
