Dear Editor,
As someone who does indeed enjoy discussing literature in bars, reputable and disreputable, with Dr David Dabydeen, I find his letter unfortunate not just in tone but in the veracity of its content. My learned friend should be aware, that unlike the Minister he is defending, he has an actual international reputation to protect, one that continues to be diminished with each piece of correspondence on this issue.
A relevant personal anecdote on Freedom House’ de facto policy on literary development: last year, the President of Guyana openly appealed for the WICB to make clear guidelines in its selection criteria so as to show reason why cricket Ramnaresh Sarwan was not selected; yet, in the ten years since I won the Guyana Prize at 22, for work I did between the ages of 19 and 21, I have not been called to represent Guyana at a single literary or other cultural event, with no reason being given.
And this is simply what the government has done openly and with impunity – what has been done clandestinely has been far more insidious and pervasive. For example, earlier this year, in the aftermath of my pointing out that it was unethical for the Minister of Culture to have his daughter’s work published by the state publication mechanism, I was swiftly sent a lawyer’s letter, delivered to my home by a Ministry of Culture office assistant and which I signed receipt for in the diary of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Culture, Alfred King. When that did not faze me, and I responded, the next few weeks would see me receiving warning calls that persons that I had done work for, particularly in state agencies, were being threatened or interrogated. Indeed, I was informed that these phantom inquisitors were looking into a lucrative contract I had supposedly undertaken with one ministry, a contract I had in fact reconsidered and refused because of a potential conflict of interest situation arising.
And this is nothing new – I’ve spent the better part of the past ten years either hearing that I cannot be worked with simply because of my criticism of the government, or having clients contort themselves to accommodate me so as to disguise the fact that I’ve done good work for them, and this includes people in government.
In 2009, during a time that this economic targeting had reached one of its frequent peaks due to my then criticism of the mismanagement of Carifesta X (2008), I received correspondence from Dr Dabydeen indicating his desire to meet and discuss writing. Over drinks at Tower Hotel, we spoke about the need for workshops and the eventual development of a writers’ festival in Guyana. I was asked to prepare a document to send to Frank Anthony for approval, and I informed Dabydeen that at the time my laptop had broken down and so the preparation of the document in a timely manner would be difficult. He insisted, quite generously, on provide funding for a laptop towards this end and because “we writers have to support each other, man,” I subsequently received a quotation for a netbook from Starz computers. Dr Dabyeen produced the bulk of the funding for it, I paid the balance out of whatever little savings I had, and days later the blueprint for the workshops we discussed was on the desk of the Minister of Culture. It was the same blueprint that the Minister was to inform me a year later, after incidentally running into him, that the Ministry could not afford, despite my including a mechanism for corporate support.
With regard to the UNESCO workshop, I arrived late for the pre-ceremony but on time for the workshop and the sum offered was an honorarium, $8,000, not payment – I make more doing a single press release. I initially offered, without requirement, to give my post-workshop analysis in writing but I opted instead to inform Petamber Persaud that the most important thing to take away was that a single day clinic was not enough.
The reasons I have not submitted my work, despite Dr Dabydeen saying just once, that the Press was considering publishing my Guyana Prize-winning work are, one, because I honestly believe that the Press’s function should be primarily developmental and focus on providing opportunity for emerging writers, and if the quality is not there, then the focus should be on developmental mechanisms; the second reason, the same one that has made me not submit any work anywhere, even when solicited to do so was because I intend to control, publish and profit from my own work. The one exception, and this was last month, was when Peepal Tree asked to take a look at my work and I sent manuscripts to Jeremy Poynting. My first book of fiction which won the Guyana Prize for literature and my first book of poetry which was on that year’s shortlist were there among published writers in the diaspora so I personally have nothing to prove with regard to quality of writing. I similarly withhold comments on Dr Dabydeen’s own recent writing.
I have never barked and snarled at the Guyana Prize judges because indeed the system of judging is one that the PPP’s intrusiveness cannot touch without great effort, particularly because, as conceived by founder President Desmond Hoyte, the jury must include reputable overseas-based scholars. This is the sort of magnanimity of vision in the furtherance of literary development that Freedom House has no conception of. Concerning my supposed “criticisms of Ashley Anthony,” clearly the esteemed writer continues to ignore the text of what I’ve said, particularly in my last letter, or he is going ‒ as Dr Anthony has done – for cheap emotional points.
Understandably, both Drs Dabydeen and Anthony are feeling no small amount of discomfort with regard to my questioning of the Minister’s clear incapacity to manage his portfolio in a fair, competent and accountable manner, but neither should take it personally and hence seek to resort to spurious and ineffectual ad hominem attacks – my endgame in this transcends any one person, government or even political party.
I have expended too much time and too much energy in rhetoric, trying to hint at a general framework for action, particular with regard to cultural policy, and with little effect upon either stakeholders or policymakers, including the independent media and the political opposition.
Let me cut through all this. A white paper on the National Cultural Fund, ‘Areas of Inquiry Into and Recommendations for Reform of Management for the National Arts Fund,’ is available for download on the Scribd website. A copy of it has also been e-mailed to the independent media, to members of the political opposition and to the Ministry of Culture. Others on the establishment of a national literary development policy and on a national film council will follow in the upcoming months.
I will be following up on the commitments made by the Alliance For Change, the political party I continue to give critical support to, with regard to assuring the responsible expenditure of the National Arts Fund, and the holding of Dr Anthony accountable in the management of national cultural policy and the expenditure of taxpayer dollars; the Minister would do well to adjust himself to withstand what would be no doubt unprecedented scrutiny. I again repeat my offer to engage the ministry in whatever initiatives it may take moving forward.
Now, I will finally publicly address a rumour that Freedom House has conveniently created and is secretly spreading to rationalize its utter failure to answer my criticisms, that is, that I am being both directed and paid by the opposition or some other entity to engage in whatever campaign I seem set on. This is patently untrue – it is simply that after years of attacks on my income, there has been a level of survival that I have conditioned myself to accept in the interest of the one goal that goads me on, one that is understandably beyond the comprehension of people in the PPP, that is the betterment of Guyana, using whatever talent and resources that are at my disposal, and without fear or favour. It does not matter that the government has worked its utmost best to ensure that those resources are reduced to naught.
Change is going to come to this place, change that Freedom House cannot bully, bribe or bluster its way out of, and I count myself among those who would be arbiters of that change.
Yours faithfully,
Ruel Johnson
