Dear Editor,
It is injurious to public understanding and to truth-seeking that the terms ‘a militarised state’ and ‘the militarisation of the state’ have been so recklessly thrown into our political discourse. That the PPP has led this propaganda charge comes as no surprise. The party hopes to gain political mileage among the electorate by scare tactics. What is, however, disappointing is that reasoned thinkers, such as the Stabroek News, have repeatedly echoed this chant with total disregard for what exactly it means for a state to be militarised (see example of this irresponsible usage in Sunday Stabroek’s editorial ‘Cabinet and army HQ’).
So, what is a militarised state or what are the signs of increasing militarisation? And does Guyana meet the criteria? The first thing to debunk is the nonsense that the presence of retired army officers in the highest levels of government and the public service, in and of itself, militarises the state. The President as commander-in-chief aside, even if we accept, for argument’s sake, that the retired officers in government and the current military top brass are in cahoots, we are still way short of what constitutes a militarised state.
Instead, we have to examine several well-established interwoven criteria, which include: (i) the use of military actions to resolve political conflicts, (ii) the militarization of the police by allowing them to freely use military equipment and tactics and by putting them directly under the command of the army, (iii) the consolidation of executive power and curtailment of civil rights under the exigency (or excuse) of fighting internal ‘wars’, such as on drugs, terrorism, or political destabilisers (for instance, through regular declarations of state of emergencies and launching of military raids. Have we had any of these recently, by the way?), and (iv) the promotion and imposition of military values on society through conscription, widespread military training of civilians as reserves, military propaganda, and military symbolisms (an example, the President and other top-ranking government officials routinely wearing military outfits with many shiny buttons).
However you modify or refine this list, absolutely none of these features is evident in the way the coalition has ruled since May 2015. The presence of retired officers in government, the appointment of retired officers to head CoIs, and the decision to hold cabinet meetings at the army HQ are simply common manifestations of how informal fraternities operate. One is more likely to reach out to people one knows. In that case, we, the people, should be more alert in ensuring equal opportunity for all and that no square pegs end up in round holes.
But to call Guyana a militarised state? Nah, not even close.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
