Emmanuel Kant, the eminent 18th century German moral philosopher, believed that there was only a single ‘categorical imperative’ in the moral realm: ‘Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.’ Kant believed that only reason, because it is universal and impartial in its application, could tell us the truth about the world and what is correct behaviour. Reason also requires that we ‘treat humanity, whether in your own person or in another, always as an end and never as only a means’ (https://www.britannica.com/topic/categorical-imperative). Behaviour that does not fall within the categorical imperative fails ‘to achieve the minimum of moral worth required to be permissible – not contradicting themselves. The perpetrators have made themselves beastly, subhuman, and relinquished part or all of their dignity. If their misbehaviour should be a crime, then it is perfectly reasonable to consider them, as rational self-legislators, to be authorizing the same treatment against themselves. It is the only way to respect their autonomy and to treat them as an end in themselves and not merely a means.’
(https://blogs.ubc.ca/harpercampbell/2017/01/02/on-the-moral-worth-of-moral-condemnation/).
I recently again came upon the above axioms of Kant, and if I interpret him correctly they enable me to comment on a range of present day issues. Indeed, I think that if Guyanese should consider them, they will soon come to recognise the limitations of much of what is peddled as social policy and criticisms. For example, Mr. Keith Lowenfield, CEO of the Guyana Elections Com-mission which is responsible for managing the national and regional elections process, is having some trouble with his employer and it is something of a mystery to me why this should be so. Mr. Lowenfield is an important CEO but nevertheless only a CEO and if the Kantian maxims applicable to this category of people are applied to him – and I see no local impediment preventing this – what is taking place at GECOM would appear to be much ado about nothing.
Universally, in terms of reportage, among other things, a CEO is expected to tell the truth as he believes it to be, focusing on the big picture. He needs to give his board both the good and the bad sides of the issue, needs to say how he views the future, what are his recommendations and what decisions are anticipated. The board will need to discuss his presentation in some detail and then wholly or partially agree or disagree with his advice and then by majority or unanimously ‘direct’ that he prepare an outcome of their discussion for them to endorse. If he fails to do as instructed then he could rightfully be disciplined. If the commissioners had adopted an approach of what is universally expected of any CEO, they might by now have got the report they wanted. Instead of letting him state what is on his own mind in terms of the activities, the commission appears to want to do the totally inappropriate thing and tell him what to initially report to them – adopting an approach that will never become universally acceptable in the field of management!
Related to the above, there is a mountain of moral criticism, some of it appearing to be well deserved, directed at the coalition government. All societies praise and condemn behaviour to mark the limits of what is considered morally permissible. Without such moral boundaries, communal living would not be possible and this process also helps to correct behaviour. One’s behaviour may be good or bad, and if it is found to be bad and condemned and if the condemnation weighs on your mind, you will submit to the justice of the social order. Moral condemnation can be used to try to reform the social system or against misbehaving governments, but while such condemnations always proclaim their truth and good intentions, they are not always reasonable. ‘It more often appeals to group solidarity, emotion, habit, or pure metaphor than it appeals to disinterested reason’ (Ibid). From my assessment, disinterested reason is substantially absent from much of discourse taking place in Guyana and this is because the context of the criticisms is dysfunctional. Moral criticisms are most effective in situations in which, according to the influential British philosopher, John Stuart Mill, no single opinion is thought to be infallible and the suppression of opinions is accepted as injurious to the public good. As Chairman Mao Zedong preached (but perhaps did not practice), let a thousand flowers blossom and this free interplay will sooner or later reject false ideas.
However, the criticisms of the government have hardly affected its support and have had little impact upon the PNC. Indeed, rather than becoming a pariah, Mr. Lowenfield, à la former Home Affairs Minister Ronald Gajraj in relation to the phantom squad issue in the early 2000s, has become a hero to the vast majority of the African community. This is so because given the nature of Guyanese society: a thousand flowers cannot blossom. I have quoted Mill many a time in this column to the effect that where the influences that form opinions are different for the two large ethnicities, there is simply no united public opinion, particularly on political matters. The ground is not sufficiently fertile for different views to freely intermingle and produce change. This does not mean that criticisms are not permissible or useful: it only means that we need to recognise their contextual limitations.
It is said that there are two means by which one can morally condemn an action. The first is to collapse its moral underpinnings on its own contradictions. However, when an argument is based on separate principles, and behaviour lives up those principles, for one to condemn that behaviour one has to show that one’s claim to moral superiority is not speculative but true (Ibid). The stance of the PNC in relation to its electoral politics is susceptible to both of these approaches.
When it came to government in 2015, largely because they believed themselves to have been badly treated by the PPP government during its 23 year rule, the PNC it and its supporters had no intention of ever relinquishing government to the PPP again, and there are two important formulations of this position. One holds that the coalition could stay in government for some considerable time if it adopted sensible policies and given its control of the levers of government and influence over the elections machinery. Having more faith in its capacity to control the machinery, the PNC did not adopt smart electoral policies. I am not here interested in the behaviour of the PPP, but generally when other alternatives that could sensibly protect the interests of one’s constituency are available, going into competitive politics intending not to be truly competitive and thus jeopardizing the interest of a whole community that trusts and depends upon one is incontrovertibly morally bankrupt.
The fault of the PNC may severely disrupt but in no fashion diminish the political right of those of African and other ethnicities to be governed by their ethnic representatives of their own choosing.
The second formulation, which I support, makes moral claims that are not simply speculative but true. There should have been a swift introduction of an alternative method of governance that would have equitably protected the interest of all ethnicities in Guyana. I believe that this column has repeatedly provided sufficient evidence that the present winner-takes-all political system of governance is dysfunctional in Guyana-type societies and that shared governance is the only democratic means of ruling these types of countries (‘Shared governance or dictatorship?’ SN: 08/07/2020).
