Dear Editor,
When an esteemed academician such as Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan – former Chan-cellor of the University of Guyana – writes a poorly constructed article that cries out for substantive evidentiary empirical support, it numbs the mind, and calls into question the legitimacy we, as Guyanese, place on prominent individuals. In his published article, “Whither Guyana: Auto-cracy or Democracy,” Dr. Ramcharan utilized Anne Applebaum’s book Autocracy Inc., to launch and fashion his analysis and guise his intent. Any academician of note would readily admit that Apple-baum’s book is simply a right-wing journalist’s presentation of autocracy, and not a valid empirical study that can withstand rigorous scrutiny, or applicability. Hence, it is disappointing for Dr. Ramcharan, a respected academician, to utilize the book as a reliable source of evidentiary support for his assessment of the Guyanese situation.
In fact, Dr. Ramcharan seemed less concerned about the structure of social scientific thinking which guides one’s presentation/analysis. These include: (i) authorial intent: that is, the clearly stated purpose of the author; (ii) thematization: the topic or words chosen by the author and how they are presented; (iii) object constitution: how the author lays out his objectives; and (iv) historicity: the actual history, not myths created by the author. Now, all of this may sound too highfalutin to the average reader but, what it means is that every writer – me included – when writing, had a purpose in mind, and chooses what, and how we present our arguments supported by facts for a given period. This is to facilitate readers’ understanding.
In going through Dr. Ramcharan’s article, one finds ramblings about autocrats from various countries, then fleeting remarks on Guyana under the leadership of Jagan, Burnham, Hoyte, after which he turned to NGOs (non-governmental organizations). Supposedly, these organizations concern themselves with such things as human and voters’ rights, health, poverty etc. Their sources of funding are from grants and donations, and since they are not under the auspices, or control of the national government, they are not subject to rigorous scrutiny, or accountability, as to their intent. So, it is not clear why Dr. Ramcharan called into question efforts to hold NGOs accountable. Dr. Ramcharan should have disclosed to whom are these organizations accountable.
Throughout his presentation, Dr. Ramcharan waffled between Democracy and Autocracy, using such sentences as, “There are also shades of autocracy (twice),” and then saying, “The spirit of governance smells of autocracy.” Then, he finally concluded, “Until Guyana succeeds in devising a trusted system of governance, it will remain precariously poised between democracy and autocracy, with vibes of autocracy manifesting themselves in governance of the country.” Through these sentences Dr. Ramcharan seems to be revealing his true intent of presenting information to mislead the public on Guyana’s system of governance.
Not only did Dr. Ramcharan fail to provide empirical evidence to support his rambling claims, he also failed to present meaningful, or coherent, definitions of his use of the terms “democracy,” and “autocracy.” In this regard Dr. Randy Persaud’s remarks may shed some light when he stated that, “The fact that Dr. Ramcharan himself can get his highly flawed claims published in a major national newspaper only highlights the point that Guyana is a fully open society.” To which I may add, autocratic societies are not open nation-states.
Sincerely,
Narayan Persaud, PhD
Professor Emeritus
