If the denudation of opposition-orientated labour organisations is recognised as signifying the initial phase of the march to political/ethnic dominance, the vulgarly partisan 2011 issuing of radio licences and frequencies represents its apogee. In a previous article of this series, I promised to present the developments in the labour sector as a practical example of the establishment of political dominance, but while what occurred in the labour sector is important, developments in three other areas: ethnic leadership, the media and the economy, deserve our consideration.
But first let me say that maybe because of our religious upbringing, we can more easily understand human behaviour in terms of good against evil – right and wrong – and that is how we normally characterize political behaviour and individuals in Guyana. The notion of one group seeking to dominate the other is too uncivilized and runs counter to our across-the-board theoretical commitment to multi-ethnic institutionalism.
Yet, in ethnically problematical societies the drive to dominance, variously conceived and explained, is not unusual. As examples, in Fiji dominance is necessary for the protection of native rights, in Sir Lanka it holds the country together against antidemocratic ethnic separatists, in Northern Ireland it is protection of some kind of historic Englishness against undemocratic papist separatists and in Guyana efforts were/are being made by Janet Jagan and the PPP to keep the wicked, untrustworthy PNC and their marauding supporters at bay. PPP hegemony must be established and maintained in every significant area of social endeavour. However, as the examples above indicate, nowhere have such efforts been successful. Thus, it would be better for us to join the search for more modern and realistic solutions.
Given the history of the development of our political relationships, the removal and/or the safe institutionalisation of ethnic leadership constituted an important stage in the drive for dominance. The relocation of the 1823 monument from Independence Square to Carifesta Avenue despite the feelings and expressions of the African leadership is sufficient evidence that the PPP believes that by one means or another, it has established its dominance over this group and that they are ripe for humiliation.
The experiences of Ronald Waddell, Mark Benschop and Phillip Bynoe exemplify the essential range of methods for dealing with the radical elements and the institutionalisation of ethnic concerns in the parliamentary majoritarian framework, in which the PPP had a built-in majority, was the preferred method for dealing with the more conservative elements. It is amazing how reasonable this idea of attempting to solve one’s disputes within the parliamentary framework appeared to many persons, particularly foreigners who come from places with sensibly working parliaments but have little understanding of the unique nature of our political/ethnic situation.
Of course, today, when the PPP does not dominate parliament, with the help of the courts, which have pronounced as if Magna Carta and the American Revolution never occurred, the party has set about undermining the entire parliament idea. For, if the average citizens never thought that parliament was a complete waste of time, recent political pronouncements must have pointed them in that direction. If a majority is not a sufficient majority and if parliament cannot determine how the people’s taxes and other resources are spent, parliament is useless, and this is the clearest indication that our constitution is gravely defective and in need major reforms. At the other extreme, the question the PPP needs to consider as it proceeds along this path of undermining our major constitutional institution is, if not parliament, then what?
If one political intervention has been sacred to Janet Jagan and the PPP it has been the media. Everyone knows that right up to the final period of her political life, Ms. Jagan kept well in touch with what was taking place in the party and state media.
The preponderance of the propaganda that has over the decades spewed from the PPP’s propaganda machinery has left most of us with a distorted view of our reality. This goes way back and plays well to our nationalistic propensities. To this day you hear that in the 1950s and 60s Guyana had the best education system, was the most developed country and bread basket of the Caribbean, etc.
Many of us, particularly supporters of the party, have bought into the constantly peddled notion of the wicked PNC that overthrew the PPP as if the PPP and the Jagans did not make a major contribution to their own political demise. Indeed, it is because many have accepted this propagandistic trend of thought that some still have the audacity to demand that leaders of the PNC must apologise to the beleaguered and wronged leaders and supporters of the PPP for the sins of the Burnham era.
The PPP 1992 manifesto states that: “The PPP/CIVIC holds strongly to the view that free mass media are indispensible to democratisation and development. In the process of reconstruction and the development of a pluralist democracy, free media will facilitate wide and open debate on the choice of path for recovery, and will promote involvement of the people and their creative thinking in the process of development.” It went on to say many other reasonable and nice things and then promised the “establishment of an independent broad-based publication and Broadcasting Authority which will propose standards in keeping with journalistic ethics, balance and fairness.”
For two decades the PPP dominated the state media, had monopoly control over radio and did not establish the independent Broadcast Authority. Now under pressure, the party has created a heavily biased Broadcasting Authority and applied a most politically skewed distribution of radio licences and frequencies to assure its continued dominance. Yet, even if they get away with this process, the PPP is making a huge mistake, which suggests that it does not as yet quite understand the nature of its situation.
Firstly, in divided societies such as ours, people have already made up their minds and will choose what and who to listen to based on their political predisposition. Therefore, and secondly, the party is amassing this media empire to speak to what all agree is its dwindling support base, and by its very methods is surely alienating the other communities it needs to influence. Finally, the blatant wrongdoing that the distribution of media licences represents must make even some traditional supporters suspect that there must be something extremely wrong if the PPP is so afraid to allow them normal opportunities to hear the other side!
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
