Dear Editor,
Some Guyanese hold the view that it is a waste time to listen to Glen Lall, David Hinds, Kidackie Amsterdam, Sherod Duncan or Henry Jeffrey. They say the named individuals, feed daily at the trough of divisive politics and negativity; that they have nothing positive to say about the Ali administration and that they spend their time and effort criticizing the PPP/C in or out of government. Further, they warn that those individuals can influence their listeners politically, ideologically and philosophically, but that is debatable. In politics as well as in the public interest, it is advisable to listen to all sides, government and opposition. To ignore either of the two can be to your disadvantage especially when it comes to being knowledgeable. One should listen to what both government or opposition spokespersons have to say, but the freedom to agree or disagree is an inalienable right.
At the parliamentary level, political opponents of the PPP/C and representatives of the ruling party parley with each other from ‘across the floor’ and indirectly, they send messages to each other through press conferences, the daily newspapers, TV commentaries and social media platforms. Let’s take the case critics, cynics and pessimists for example, they are hard at work on a daily basis, particularly on social media seeking to influence their listeners. Their problem lies in underestimating the intelligence and experience of their listeners, specifically, the older folks who would have heard so many platitudes and unfulfilled promises in their lifetime from far more powerful and influential politicians, so much so that what they hear now makes absolutely no sense. Like the blind men and the elephant—the prophets of doom and gloom -fail to appreciate the complexities of the Guyanese body politic.
And as far as the younger folks are concerned, save for the lumpen elements, they are more concerned about jobs, acquiring a house lot, to be professionally qualified, to pursue their interest in agriculture, uplifting their general welfare as well as their public safety and security. It is against this backdrop that the younger folks of today are not prone to be easily influenced and misled by empty rhetoric and brow-beating that brings them nothing. However, should the views and opinions of opposition elements coincide with those of the ruling party and government on a specific matter, changes are likely to occur in their political outlook and in pursuit of their economic interest.
In a recent exchange of views aired on social media, David Hinds supported Henry Jeffrey’s view that all those who supported and fought for free and fair elections between March and August 2020 helped legitimize the undemocratic PPP/C. They argued that the ‘Defenders of Democracy’ mistakenly helped ‘install’ an illegitimate government. The duo were supportive of continuing with bad governance practiced by the APNU+AFC and favoured the reinstatement of the corrupt cabal as well as their abuse of power for their personal enrichment. Both Hinds and Jeffrey must know that whatever the concepts and precepts they construct to suit their own fancies, such as injustice, domination and discrimination, such ‘things’ can be de-constructed.
They hold unabashedly, that however false their narratives, they are believable and that the gullible will accept their opinions as obvious truths, whereas on the contrary, they are culturally constructed. One of the tricks they use is the way they communicate their views and opinions to their listeners in an effort to convince them that a word, a concept, a precept or a simple text, has a single, fixed meaning. And that this meaning is true, pure, and unconstructed – that it is natural, rather than cultural. While airing their programmes, the naysers expect viewers to believe what they are saying, but viewers should not make the mistake of thinking that what they are hearing is natural and reasonable to believe.
On the contrary, it would do us well were we to critically think through all they said with a view to pulling apart all their false narratives. Viewers should not allow themselves to be empty vessels into which anything can be poured. The contradictions are in the narratives the naysayers utilize, not in the narratives they chose to ignore. By ‘bigging’ up their false messages they try to laugh off and scoff at the views of government spokespersons not realizing that to viewers they are in fact contradicting themselves.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
