So, here we are, another General Election is upon us. The scene is set. Campaigning is well underway. In this we might yearn for powerful, spirited but fair and fact-filled debates on the issues but this is unlikely to come to pass for the simple reason that as soon as electoral jockeying begins, sensible debate over public issues for the national good gives way to bickering for purely partisan benefit.
Along with the temperature of partisan dispute, political tempers will rise sharply. As always happens, more heat than light will be generated as the rivals for political power clash in argument and counter-argument. It is highly unlikely that calm consideration of issues will then be on anybody’s priority list. The grating sounds of ranks closing will drown out any voices trying to be objective. “Who is not for me unconditionally is against me unforgivably”; that is the rule which governs opinion at such times. “My enemy’s enemy, however disreputable, is my friend”. It is dogma time in all public forums.
It will not be a good time for commentators and columnists. Any word doubting one party’s plan to inaugurate immediate Utopia will be greeted with scorn and derision. Any word opposing another party’s favourite scheme to change human nature instantly for the better will be singled out for vituperation. Merit will only be recognised by one side or the other if there is total commitment to one side or the other. I strongly believe that Emmanuel Kant’s words – “Out of timber so crooked as that from which man is made nothing entirely straight can be built” – should be applied to any policy, plan, or programme devised by any political party whatsoever. However, any person with such a view is not likely to be persona grata with anybody when campaigning begins.
Various forms of attack or appeal can be expected and it may be useful to describe them. In the Middle Ages, when rhetoric was part of the educational curriculum, these were classified in the Latin textbooks and could be easily recognized. Let us go through some of the principal devices which politicians through the ages have adopted. Ours are no different.
The argumentum ad populum is the appeal to irrational fears and hatreds that are close to the surface in raw human nature. In Guyana, the appeal to race is the most dangerous and despicable form of this argument. Sadly the early 1960s do not seem to have inoculated us against this plague.
The argumentum ad hominem is a favourite device. Look out for it. It rejects a person’s views by abusing his personality, character, motives, background, qualifications and so on. “We should pay no attention to this man’s views on the Government’s development programme (for or against). He is bad-tempered, vain, adulterous and also rather ugly.” There is no necessary connection between a man’s temper, vanity, faithfulness or looks and a man’s views but that does not prevent the wide use of this class of argument.
The argumentum ad crumenam is the appeal to a man’s stomach or purse, a very potent appeal indeed throughout the history of elections. Remember Herbert Hoover promising to put a chicken in the pot of every American. Remember Harold McMillian’s “You’ve never had it so good.” Roman emperors, though not subject to election, still tried to keep the price of bread low to court popularity. Expect, without fail, all the parties to employ ad nauseam the argumentum ad crumenam. The opposition parties will have you believe that wages will soar and the price of everything from cooking oil, rice and schoolbooks to minibuses will be magically lowered under their inspired stewardship, while the governing party will claim that their indefatigable management of the economy has already brought untold material benefits to all Guyanese and will bring even more oily abundance in a future shining ever brighter if only they continue.
Then there is the argumentum ad verecundiam. This is the appeal to higher authority which really should not be questioned by mere mortals. “This is so because the President says it is so and, of course, he knows best,” or “That is so because Mr. Jagdeo says it is so and he has such a world of political experience”. Naturally, any statement is either true or false – or partly true or partly false (more likely) – irrespective of who makes the statement but that does not in the slightest prevent politicians (or indeed anybody) constantly employing the fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam. Why do you think famous movie and sports stars command such high fees to extol for our benefit the claims of this beer or that perfume?
Finally, we should merely take note of the argumentum ad baculum. The argument of threat or appeal to the big stick. The celebrated Mafiosi “offer that cannot be refused” is simply one example of the argumentum ad baculum in action. The use of this argument, thank goodness, is relatively unprevalent here – not at all an essential part of the national ethos as it has been in any number of countries cursed by military dictatorship through the years. That is not our style. No military man, as far as one can make out, waits in the wings with the ultimate sort of argumentum ad baculum at the ready. That at least we will be spared. However, be prepared for all the other kinds of arguments in profusion.
I saw one slogan that I thought made a lot of sense: “TOGETHER WE’RE BETTER”. Sadly, though, it was applied by one party to its own togetherness. If only it could be applied by all parties to the whole country……… But then, I suppose, that would be electioneering in never-never land.
