Dear Editor,
The recent festival of lights, Diwali, provided an almost perfect opportunity for our enlightenment of the government’s political (il)legitimacy. Allow me to state at the outset that the Diwali date declaration debate (whether Diwali ought to be the 10th of November, or the 11th of November never happened before in almost 50 years of governance under the PPP and PNC regimes). There was never an attempt to divide the Hindu community for whatever perceived or alleged objective and anyone who believes that it was will realise upon reflection that a divided Hindu community whose followers are also by and large PPP supporters, is not only inimical to the interest of the PPP but in the words of the author Barbara Tuchman a “march of folly”.
Political legitimacy is the recognition of the right to govern and is considered the sine qua non (an essential condition or requirement) for governing. In political science, legitimacy usually is understood as the popular acceptance and recognition by the public of the authority of a governing regime.
The celebration of Diwali by the vast majority of Hindus on the 11th November instead of the date declared by Khemraj Ramjattan (10th November) with the public approbation of President David Granger is profoundly instructive in determining, at least partially, the question of the political legitimacy of the APNU+AFC government. It is also rare because this was and will be one of the few instances where the government declared ‘x’ and the vast majority of the people considered the government’s declaration, refused and/or defied that government declaration and openly did ‘y’. The proud display of Diwali celebrations on the 11th of November all around the country and interestingly on the very street where Khemraj Ramjattan lives unavoidably juxtaposes the government’s humiliating discord with the voice and will of the people.
The declaration of the APNU-AFC as the government in May 2015 heralded for the persons who supported them a golden aperture of hope of not just for change but change for the better. The desperate and probably visceral clamour for a better way by their supporters must be contextualised for the purposes of this letter on political legitimacy with reference to two salient points: first, the declared results with a small margin of victory of just over 4000 votes; and the victory of the PPP in 7 out of 10 regions delineating a country divided in two political halves with its inevitable divided allegiances and respect for the APNU+AFC as the declared government.
‘Consent’ is to accept a situation that includes a measure of renunciation which is manifested in the duty to obey. John Locke, a British philosopher who is known as the father of classical liberalism, among many others, argues that political legitimacy is derived from consent of the governed. Some have contended that consent is necessary but not sufficient for political legitimacy, and that in an examination of these types of principle the protection of minority rights, checks on executive power, and the rule of law are central pillars in liberal democracies.
The already precarious ‘consent’ and ‘duty to obey’ notions intrinsic to the government-populace relationship created by the two aforementioned precursors precipitates ominous statements by PPP supporters representing half of the population. Equally important, however, is that those exact conditions contemporaneously created a small but golden opportunity for the APNU+AFC to justify the vote of hopeful confidence. Unnecessary, unpopular, undemocratic and unwise decisions compounded with arrogant attitudes destroyed the vote of hope already positioned on a precarious foundation, but more importantly it may very quickly erode irreversibly political legitimacy. Unfor-tunately, the APNU+AFC government never saw the light.
Yours faithfully,
Charles S Ramson, MP
