The topic of our first article after a two-year hiatus was selected on account of the recurrent theme we have noticed.
For those who missed our articles, we are back. We have been working assiduously on preparing for the launch of our Open Government call. This is a call on Guyanese to demand an abandonment of the culture of secrecy favoured by our officials. We feel it is a culture that is at 180-degree variance with what the constitution demands. The principles of Open Government are also those to which our governments have signed on to under several international commitments over the last two decades. So, what we are saying really is that we are calling on our governments to stand by their commitments both internationally and locally. We should not have to do this. But unfortunately we do.
Unfortunately, there are those in the society who see this call as a threat to their very survival. It is the only reason why our first message: ”The surgeon general advises that contract secrecy is dangerous to national wealth” was greeted with such comments like “why is TIGI being selective?” and “Where was TIGI when…?” Etc. In the event that the reader is wondering what connection our geographical or other location has to do with our right to call for open government, we do not see the connection either! But we are treating with a certain type of illogic that has gained currency over too many years. So much so that it easily finds resonance. The Constitution of Guyana, after all, is quite clear. Article 13 (“Objective of political system”) states that the principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State. Our version of the constitution does not show any conditions attached to such a right and duty. But, we are not surprised at all. For, as we shall show below, there is a dominant narrative that always manages to be created by a group of people which narrative tends to seduce the unwary into echoing their sentiments. The perpetrators know what they are doing; the victims do not.
Selective advocacy
To the charge of selective advocacy, we plead guilty. We select what we would advocate for in accord with the Transparency International (TI) strategy for the upcoming years. We select which aspects of the TI strategy we would focus on. We select based on what we consider a priority for the society. We see that our commentators have no problem with being selective: they selected us for comment. And we appreciate that. It gives us an opportunity to reflect on the thinking of the society.
But this is the trivial interpretation of the accusation. Let us go now to the deeper implication. What these commentators mean is that we have singled out the PPP/C government for attention while we were silent before, especially during the imbroglio that unfolded in 2018 December and reached a crescendo in 2020.
Apparently, that is a perception on the part of supporters of whichever party is in power that is hard to escape. What these people cannot know (assuming that they are not propagandists – we shall deal with this category shortly) is that we have had the selfsame accusation from the other party! At a conference in 2018 in Trinidad, for instance, at which our representative shared a table with a member of the Coalition government, the member, as soon as our representative presented his TIGI nametag, looked directly at him and said squarely “So you are Transparency! You all seemed to have found your voice all of a sudden!”
Our rep laughed and assured him that his perception was not original and we had grown to expect it by now. In fact, one of the speakers at our first annual dinner, the venerable Deryck Murray, ex-West Indies wicket keeper and then president of Transparency International Trinidad, assured us that we could look forward to whichever government was in power having a problem with our existence and advocacy. He was clearly a prophet! And notice that there is no PPP or PNC in Trinidad.
Now to the propagandists. This is a category of person who specializes in propaganda. There is an old saw that says that propaganda is for proper geese. Unfortunately, there are simply too many propaganda specialists in Guyana. That seems to be the main specialization and expertise of our political bosses over the decades. They have lost the plot on what matters to the rest of us but they have done well holding their base mainly with propaganda. Raising the question “Where were they when…?” gives the unvigilant reader the impression that the question does not have an answer. After all, the person they are questioning is absent. So the question remains unanswered. So let us answer the question. We would never say once and for all. That would underestimate the skills of the propagandist. He simply waits until everyone who may have read this article forgets about it and asks the famous question all over again: “Where…?” You know the rest. It is a powerful mantra – but only for proper geese.
The Council of Wise Men
Our propagandists are part of what we consider an unofficial cohort of people who are responsible for creating, managing, and monitoring the prevailing narratives of the day as regards the performance of the government, what the country needs economically, what it does not need, and even which laws mean what. The last should be of especial interest to thinking Guyanese. Yes, what we are saying is that where politics, law, and economics meet, there is a council of wise men (COW) who are responsible for the propagation of certain narratives of politics, law, and development.
How do we know?
We know because it has always been so. During the 1980’s when the official position was “Who is not with me is against me”, there was a narrative being peddled “You leave politics to us…You mind your own business.” Another went “I hungry and you talking ‘bout revolution?” Then there was the oft-repeated view that the right to work (as related to the entire population) was not justiciable. It was nonsense to claim otherwise according to these wise men.
The COW knew that there was no right to pension. When Timal vs Guysuco put paid to that false notion, the law was simply changed. The COW men are at the axis of deciding which laws are inconvenient and how to fix that.
Finally, there was the chorus that the movement from capitalism to socialism was also of no value. This, no doubt reflected the prevailing Western view of that day, the view that we can now recognize as cocksureness. After all, Western capitalism was on the verge of winning the ideology battle. No one wanted to hear about socialism. The iron claws of capitalism without a conscience had not yet become evident or had been forgotten in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Under constant American rattling about totalitarianism it was futile for the counter-narrative of the socialists that “socialism did not fail; it had not been tried” to gain traction. Even the non-aligned monument was to be treated as if it didn’t exist.
In more recent times we have not had an official position that “who is not with me is against me” but the attitude seems to be same; only the pronouncement is missing. The Council of Wise Men these days decides who is to be terminated, which laws are to be broken (sea defence and mangroves) or how certain laws are to be interpreted.
For years the narrative that the minister who signed the 1999 Esso contract had the authority to exceed the maximum of 60 blocks on a single licence and grant five times as much, was peddled. This is a narrative that sees a political advantage in deemphasizing the illegality in the 1999 contract (which has been preserved in the 2016 contract and is at the root of the majority of problems the country is having with the latter). The fact that there was consistency of rulings around the world to the contrary (that there is no such thing as unfettered discretion) did not matter to the propagators of this narrative. It suited their purpose.
Since the peddling of these narratives, the following have taken place:
The CCJ has made some strong commentary as regards unfettered discretion, effectively saying that it does not exist. (Zulfikar Mustapha ruling – CCJ Appeal No GYCV2019/007 GY Civil Appeal No 100 of 2018: “Public officials who are charged with the responsibility of making decisions particularly those which involve the exercise of a discretion whether by acting on advice or consulting must do so with fairness and give reasons for the exercise of the discretion in a particular way so that it can be ascertained whether the discretion was exercised reasonably and, according to Lord Greene MR in Wednesbury [1948] 1 KB 223, ‘within the four corners of the principles’ he enumerated …”) We had said that our research showed the courts had this position for 100 years. We have since learnt that the number of years has been seriously understated; it was more like for 300.
The Indian Supreme court has ruled that the right to work is not included in a constitution for decoration and that if a government has two choices, one of which will honour the right to work, all other things being equal, the government must take the option honouring the right to work. So much for the narratives of the 80’s and 90’s.
The CCJ has, en passant, included the transition to socialism as a valid part of the expectations of the direction in which the country should be going. (Cedric Richardson ruling – CCJ Appeal No GYCV2017/008 GY Civil Appeal No 45 of 2015: The Constitution cannot be immutable, there must be sufficient flexibility for change to meet the evolving needs of Guyanese citizens. The Constitution itself envisages this, as Article 1 declares that Guyana is “in the course of transition from capitalism to socialism.”
It is clear, then, that a lot of what gains currency as a dominant viewpoint, as if these notions are gospel, can be worth nothing when examined in the glare of proper analysis and argumentation. They are oftentimes simply propaganda – the direct implantations, and sometimes fulminations, of the COW.
TIGI’s statement policy
TIGI has a policy not to jump headlong into matters it knows nothing about. We do not hold ourselves out as experts on everything. Like the rest of the population, we found ourselves transfixed by the developments following the no-confidence motion.
As we attempted to grapple with the developments, we realized that we did not even know the difference between “cabinet” and “government”. Our directors exchanged emails struggling to arrive at a position for months as we grappled with the implications. But what we were sure about, in that fast-moving situation, was that (a) both sides were claiming to be right, and (b) there was a court process underway.
Unlike those who felt so competent they could take a position and actually criticize the court for not ruling this way or the other, we did not feel we had enough knowledge and information to make any pronouncements. We felt that the people who were competent to address the dispute, the judiciary, would make all things clear in due course.
As the drama unfolded, as certain things became clear enough, we did issue statements. They are found at https://www.guyanastandard.com/2020/03/11/tigi-joins-call-for-transparent-verification-of-results/
https://guyanachronicle.com/2020/05/30/some-politicians-only-want-the-carter-center-to-intervene-when-it-suits-their-purpose/ , and https://guyanatimesgy.com/response-to-enquiry-from-the-press-on-the-exclusion-of-the-carter-center/
Not only did TIGI issue statements but we were represented in the recount of the votes. We were very clear that the vote count had to be transparent.
TIGI’s annual dinner 2019 and racism
We have had charges of a more egregious nature thrown at us by people who should have known better. For instance, we have had accusations that we were silent (we were anything but – see above) because of certain affinities. The irony of such an accusation will be borne out by the following disclosure.
As we circulated the tickets for the 2019 annual dinner, one of our members expressed serious concern that we were bringing a speaker, Mr. Chan Santokhi, who was associated with a racist party (according to the member) – the party of Jagernath Lachmon of Suriname. We did not break stride. As far as we were concerned, that had nothing to do with the reason we chose him and for which he had kindly agreed to speak.
As it turned out, after Mr. Santokhi’s presentation, the member expressed happiness that he was present for Mr. Santokhi’s presentation and that we had chosen him. We were glad that that member was satisfied. We are still happy we chose him; he is now the president of Suriname. It is remarkable that our rejection of haste in excluding people on the basis of irrelevant criteria has not always been accorded us.
By the way, we are sorry that more people were not present for Mr. Santokhi’s presentation. What he said should strike a chord with every Guyanese. He said that we should be on guard for companies who do not allow their representatives to live among the nationals. It is a troubling sign when they insist in being in their own enclaves.
Conclusion
We do not expect that we have heard the last from the COW men. However, we do expect that those who hear these anserine questions, will now be able to make reference to this article and the links to the statements we have made.
We also hope that we have made a contribution that will help our fellow citizens to be on the lookout for, and to question, some ideas they may have, and to recognize the likely provenance of these ideas, and ultimately identify them as nothing more than propaganda. We hope that we have helped our readers to develop a healthy sense of scepticism, and to henceforth recognize what is likely to be a prevailing narrative designed to elicit certain sympathies rather than anything else.
