IF one were to examine the substance of the commentary attached to former Chancellor of the University of Guyana, Dr Bertrand Ramcharan and published by the Stabroek News, one would end up puzzled, bewildered, and kerfuffled because there is none. Zero!
The broad statements he made about alleged autocracy in Guyana, seemingly by PPP governments over the years, are false and hold no water.
If these bold statements are true, then Guyanese would have preferred to see the facts that governed his analysis, if there were any. Dr Ramcharan failed miserably to present the empirical data and analysis of the PPP’s alleged “autocratic tendencies.” He did not provide the necessary context for each of the broad tendencies.
The good doctor made more unfounded accusations against the PPP/C government relating to its record of consultations with the opposition and people. He clocked the government for criticising NGOs and the leaders. This is without providing evidence to show that the government was being unfair.
Additionally, Dr Ramcharan unjustly claimed that there seems to be an “oracle” in the ruling party who comments on all matters, before commenting that the lush oil and gas money was being improperly used.
Apart from the only thing he criticised the PNC governments over, the rest of his commentary was garbage, uninspiring and unacademic. It was like reading a political opinion piece where the writer is ranting and raving about an issue but in the end, fails miserably to persuade anybody of his cause.
In the end, the arguments put forward in his column are wholly incoherent and flawed. And, reading the piece carefully, one would feel that the government does not have a right to reply and should not set the record straight. Also, one gets the impression that the government should never be critical of its critics when it feels it is unjustly criticised.
Firstly, the PPP/C government has the right and freedom to reply to any critic and form of criticism. This right is protected by the same constitution that allows every Guyanese freedom of speech and thought. The problem with modern and developing Guyana is that Guyanese and organisations operating here can dish the criticisms but cannot take it, especially when it is returned with justifiable force.
The distinguished professor should know and understand this: the PPP/C now has developed a thick skin and will allow any person or entity to criticise the policies it adumbrates to the public. It will even allow the usual opposition suspects and politicians to swipe and criticise it unfairly. It understands it cannot regulate and control the flow of thoughts in the society. And frankly, does not want to control freedom of speech.
But when this freedom is used to push false narratives, peddle deliberate lies…and cast aspersions on the characters of politicians, their families, and ordinary Guyanese businesses, the party turns on the beast mode. It goes into defence mode when the truth and facts must be told, or when the public must be properly appraised. The party criticises the double standards and the hypocrisy of those who want to ‘act mightier than thou’, and those who are duplicitous.
The PPP/C administration will answer and clarify everything it thinks needs to see the light of truth and facts for the public’s benefit. And why not? Why should it just allow the opposition politicians to beat away at its being and become historical revisionists?
Why must the PPP/C not be afforded the right to defend its policies, plans and measures, Dr Ramcharan? How is it autocratic because it calls out and holds accountable the same NGOs that unjustly criticise the government every day?
Secondly, NGOs such as the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA), Guyana Transparency International (GTI), Amerindian People’s Association (APA), Red Thread, International Decade for People of African Descent Guyana (IDPADA-G), are guilty of playing politics and are pursuing a political agenda against the PPP Government. They are infiltrated by opposition loyalists and politicians who treat the government in bad faith and are consistently undermining the PPP with hopes of getting a donor and international funding to continue their crusade against the PPP until its back is broken. Why, can’t the PPP reply to their accusations to save its good name? How is responding to the fiery criticisms autocratic?
Does it make sense Dr Ramcharan? So, then, staying quiet is somehow, democratic? For the record, the PPP/C has strengthened the parliamentary democracy. There is a strong oversight and working parliament. Every single question asked by the opposition is answered. There is proof of this in the parliament which is an independent body.
And the opposition, if it can bear to tell the truth, has been meaningfully consulted when it is required, according to the Constitution. The opposition knows full well that it is consulted and can always reach across the aisle when it needs money or some issue addressed.
Dr Ramcharan must devise a better analysis if he is to be taken seriously.
He must explain what he means when he said, “oil money has made the Government lush with funds for information campaigns.” Dr Ramcharan can agree with the notion that every political party chooses how and who it wants to interface with its citizenry, so the “oracle” as he deems him will continue to pronounce on all matters, big and small. How is that spirit of governance smelling of autocracy? Explain it to readers.
The former university chancellor has multiple things to explain. How come the column is skewed so far to the PPP government? Does the good doctor forget the PNC+APNU+AFC administration was in office too? Aren’t there far more glaring autocratic tendencies worth talking about? They tried to steal a whole election and hid a US$18M signing bonus from the people. There are so many instances of corruption, why don’t Dr Ramcharan talk about those acts?
Thirdly, President Irfaan Ali contended that most academics target his administration although it is the “…most inclusive government, the most community-based government. For us, people are the centre of everything we do. We consult with the people and the government was elected by the people based on a manifesto.”
He was quoted as saying, “The government has that responsibility to implement that manifesto and that is all the government is doing — implementing that manifesto, but democracy excludes the government from defending itself. These great intellectuals… these great upholders of the shroud to democracy, only they have the God-given right to be critical and defend themselves,” he added.
And any objective, unbiased and sound-thinking Guyanese or intellectual worth their salt, would agree with the President’s comments. Why the PPP is considered bad and undemocratic when it replies to the opposition’s unwavering attacks and posturing of the opposition-aligned NGOs, inclusive of the so-called civil society? Goat bite it?
The PPP/C government is not sidestepping any opposition calls for a changed system of governance and inclusive governance. It is not dismissive of the notion of power-sharing. It is a serious government that deals with politics of reason and reality, not the politics of desperation.
Every time the PNC+APNU+AFC is out of office; they reintroduce these concepts to try and get the PPP government on the back foot. They start firing up the academics, like you Dr Ramcharan, and other supporters to pressure the government. It’s all a sham and trick as an election is in the air.
There must be goodwill, trust and good faith. The opposition and its armoured NGOs must first put down its campaign of levelling unjust criticisms and vile lies against this government via the new media, mass media and social media. Talks and meetings of sober minds can only be possible about Guyana’s governance system and the proposals of reforms in an atmosphere of peace, trust and political openness.
Respect and responsibility cannot be foreign concepts to PNC+APNU+AFC and only be expected of the PPP/C government. Good, sound and constructive criticism is always welcomed, but a right will be exercised by the government if it’s lacking and found to be malicious and deliberately aimed at misleading the public for political gain.
Finally, he who throws dirt always loses ground. According to this quotation, a person who spreads unfavourable information or stories in an attempt to defame or slander another person ultimately does more harm to themselves. They lose others’ respect and trust when they treat them badly, in addition to harming their own credibility and reputation. In the end, trying to undermine others only leads to one’s own demise and the loss of any moral superiority. It acts as a warning not to participate in bad behaviour that might have unfavourable long-term effects.
It is hoped that Dr Ramcharan was not used to peddle what looks like an opposition narrative out of the Congress Place playbook. After all, the former UG Chancellor knows about the value of research, writing, history and analytical politics, yet his piece was neither academic nor inspiring. Please, the public is sure that it is not the best that Dr Ramcharan could do!
Laziness must not be associated with academia.