If the report in Stabroek News (`Jeffrey way off the mark on APNU ‘posturing’ – Granger:’ SN: 11/01/2014) is anything to go by, the situation in APNU regarding the way forward may be even worse than I thought.
I will show below that its leadership – particularly Mr. David Granger himself – was not as I thought simply being naïve as to specific policies or propagandistic; deliberately seeking to give supporters the impression that the party acting on their behalf was doing something, knowing full well that the outcome will be negative. After his comments to the press, I must now conclude that Mr. Granger actually believes that the approach his party has been taking is the most sensible way forward. As such,
I believe his general approach is rooted in a defective and single dimensional view in which the cornerstone of political activity, that of adversary compliance, is essentially formalistic. The result is that we can expect more and more useless political motions as Mr. Granger awaits electoral success to implement them!
Mr. Granger made his position quite clear for Stabroek News reported that “Granger, in an invited comment yesterday, said Jeffrey’s statement was an unrealistic one as the coalition is committed to democracy.” Now; what did Jeffrey prescribe that was unrealistic and undemocratic?
In the column about which Mr. Granger’s comment was being solicited I stated: “APNU can have a full positive agenda of important issues that affect the daily lives of its supporters, e.g. the impassable roads and other conditions in Sophia; the untimely implementation of the agreements made after the Linden debacle; unacceptable public service wages and most importantly, to the need for constitutional change! The problem is that all the above require less talk and more focused walk, and outside of the placid “meet-the-constituency” visits, this is precisely what has been visibly absent from APNU’s arsenal.”
The above is the only direct policy suggestion in the entire column: can someone please tell me where in the above statement or elsewhere in the column did I suggest that Mr. Granger or APNU should act in an unrealistic and/or undemocratic manner? What is undemocratic, for example, about peacefully mobilising your supporters to act in their own interest? Democratic politics does not only take place in parliament; it is also about the peaceful marshalling of one’s forces to confront an intransigent foe. From Gandhi to Martin Luther King to Mandela we have sterling examples of this.
Indeed, in my first letter to the press after I parted company with the PPP/C, I pointed out that: “Gene Sharp in ‘Are there Realistic Alternatives?’ outlined some 198 civil resistance methods and as Stephan and Chenoweth have stated `… whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime.’”
I then concluded: “A non-violent approach is more likely to win over elements of the regime’s community base and its institutional support and this is vital for immediate success and long run democratic stability. An unreserved commitment to nonviolent conflict resolution in all our social and domestic interactions, far from being a sign of weakness, can contribute to the development of the kind of society we all desire” (“A commitment to nonviolent resolution in all our interactions can contribute to the kind of society we all desire:” SN: 31/01/ 2009)
Mr. Granger also claims that: “It is not being naïve; we are doing what we are supposed to do, scrutinize the executive and call for them to implement our resolutions. In a normal country, the government would not ignore our resolutions.” Is this for real?!
Mr. Granger has been one of those who have been saying all the things that should suggest to him that Guyana is not a normal country. They have been telling us that, unlike in normal political systems, there is no periodic regime turnover essentially because elections are racial referenda.
And we have the actual experience of living in abnormality before our very eyes! In a normal country, the capital city would not be allowed to wallow in filth as Georgetown does; the country would not be without a substantive chancellor of the judiciary and chief justice for umpteen years and Mr. Granger, would not be calling for shared governance!
This is extremely alarming for the most we can expect from Mr. Granger is that he will keep “call(ing) on them.” Desmond Hoyte went overboard with his “mo fire” but even he understood that politics is about gaining compliance not simply passing endless useless motions.
As another example of Mr. Granger’s questionable worldview, last week I argued that: “One does not have to be a genius to realise that the establishment of a workable process for the formation of a social contract in our political context is all but impossible!” Central to such a process would be the need for a level of openness and transparency that the regime has shown that it is not prepared to allow.
Yet SN reported Mr. Granger as saying that “he was surprised at the rejection (of his social contract proposal) since it was a way for the PPP to salvage its reputation and to improve the quality of governance.” How could anyone with the slightest understanding of our political reality have been surprised?! What could possibly have given to him the impression that the PPP wants to salvage its reputation and improve the quality of governance?!” Is this for real?!
As for his comments on the Civic, the less said about these kinds of personality comments the better. But I will say that one must be particularly blind to reality or have some esoteric conception of it, to claim that the Civic did not exist! For me, the Civic was ineffective because it did not have its own structure. However, because of its existence, the PPP organised statutory PPP/Civic meetings and on more than one occasion the Civic met as a group. And at one time, those who considered themselves Civic comprised more than one third of the cabinet and controlled important ministries and resources.
We may quarrel as to the real influence of the Civic individually and/or collectively, and this kind of observation may have more salience where a group is unstructured and without a defined constituency. This is however a problem with all alliances, as Mr. Granger must now be aware.
Mr. Granger, parliamentary activity is only one song in the repertoire of democratic politicians. Another is the mobilisation and marshalling of one’s forces to take a stand if needs be.
It is essentially with the absence of the latter that I found you wanting, but I am no longer baffled as you appear to hold that such activities are undemocratic!
