Dear Editor,
I wish to add a few comments concerning the intentions of the newly launched political party called ‘The People’s Republic Party’ (PRP). According to a News Room article dated December 1st, 2019, the PRP, led by Dr. Valerie Leung, has a strong religious affiliation, presumably with some form of Christianity. What concerns me isn’t the fact that the party’s representatives are religious, but that they are bringing religion into the political domain under the guise of being “God-fearing”, which to me means “submission to God.” Here, I want to discuss several reasons why Guyanese should be concerned about the advent of this religious-leaning political party.
The party claims to be a “people’s republic party”, but upon closer examination we can see that it is far from endorsing a “people’s republic” under democratic rule, and instead supports a theocratic basis of government, one which is quite intolerant and prejudicial. Immediately, we see this contravenes the secular sovereignty of Guyana, which is affirmed in Chapter 1 of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana. Thus, a “God-fearing” theocratic political party is simply unconstitutional and incompatible with a secular Guyanese republic. Under proportional representation, political parties are compelled by law to be inclusive and representative of the population, including people who look different, and share different faiths and sexualities.
Furthermore, PRP holds several (publicly claimed) motives which seek to undermine major advances of human rights in Guyana. For example, Dr. Leung, who is acting as the party’s Presidential Candidate, believes firmly in the “institution of marriage” said to be between a man and a woman ordained by God. Besides possessing a misunderstanding of human biology and sexuality, Dr. Leung believes she has the moral authority to declare what is wrong about the sex lives of consenting adults. She stated to News Room that “you don’t have a right to do what’s wrong”, while addressing the connection between marriage and homosexuality. But Guyana does not legally recognize marriage among Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, and Transgendered (LGBT) people, so this moral obligation to condemn is unwarranted. If there is a moral matter here, it would be regarding those who seek to disenfranchise love between two people—people who are part of God’s creation, loves them for who they are, even as sinners. Is this not the central Christian message? I would strongly advise the “God-fearing” representatives of PRP to consult the Gospel of John, 7:53–8:11.
Another concern of mine has to do with a rather peculiar suggestion made by Dr. Leung, that religious people are mostly honest people, and therefore they should be given a chance to govern. Dr. Leung’s reasoning stems from a warranted worry of continued corruption in Government. However, her suggestion and the implications derived from it are wholly inaccurate. The President of Guyana is a practising Christian, and so are several of his Cabinet members, though some are affiliated with other religions. It’s not just his administration, but many other political parties have religious representatives too. So, we do have religious people in Government, yet the public’s concern about corruption is still very much intact, making Dr. Leung’s argument baseless in this regard.
There is one thing I agree with Dr. Leung, that there are people in government, including those who seek to govern, who lack integrity. But the sort of integrity I think of may differ from most. Integrity can be thought of as an ethical virtue that values truth and honesty, values people should possess in keeping with their moral outlook. However, in a democratic and plural society like Guyana, not everyone conforms to the same notion of truth and honesty, for these could be relative matters in the interest of those seeking power. The Greek philosopher, Aristotle observed that “man is by nature a political animal”, and so fittingly warned us in his seminal work ‘Politics’ that demagogues will do what they can to gain power to use in their own interest, usually by appealing to people’s emotions, sometimes fabricating hostilities which weren’t there.
In summary, we know that the PRP has several regressive stances which they claim are supported by religious values, from being anti-abortion, or supporting state-sponsored killings (capital punishment), to treating LGBT people as insane or mentally ill. I get it. Not everyone shares the same virtues or have the same moral code. But this is no excuse for advocating against the many strides made in advancing equal human rights, a universal principle endorsed by most of the world’s nations. Children deserve to be treated with respect and decency just as adults demand, and therefore corporal punishment should be obsolete. Women deserve better public health services, in addition to respecting their liberty to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because they own their bodies. A state shouldn’t bear the responsibility to kill on behalf of the nation, akin to the disgust we feel about extra-judicial killings.
We should strive to achieve mutual values in the best interest of everyone, without exclusion—this is the common good that does no harm. What the PRP advocates for is the exact opposite. Therefore, they should be rejected as a political alternative, and more accepted as a political nuisance.
Yours faithfully,
Ferlin F. Pedro
