That ‘low-life’ thing
THIS past week we learned that former Telecoms Minister Catharine Hughes’ High Court case against the Vice President for employing the “low- life” moniker in reference to her, was dismissed in the High Court. There were other adjoining reliefs and declarative judgements sought by Mrs Hughes that were all dismissed.
I cannot competently comment on the legal strength of the list of ancillary matters for which reliefs were sought; however, I am able and will present a political perspective on the aspect of the particular moniker employed by the Vice President.
When the incident occurred, I commented on it in this column, see “False names, funny names and derogatory characterization,” December 4, 2023.
I am of the firm view that, at most, the label dished could be flagged and reprimanded as inappropriate from either one or both of the following standpoints: one, the use of the term “low-life” should not have come from the holder of such high office as Vice President of Guyana acting in his official capacity; the comment may have lowered the esteem of the office or office holder; two, directing such a comment to national lawmaker and parliamentary colleague erodes respect for our law assembly generally and there are more euphemistic or “appropriate” language that could’ve been employed to maintain parliamentary courtesies. Beyond that, I never believed that the comment should seek relief from or provoke recourse to a juridical institution. The Chief Justice said as much in her oral ruling.
I believe Hughes was personally hurt by the label because, in local parlance, its association is intended for people in lower social and economic strata. Who dare have the gall to reclassify Hughes’s polished, lifelong social standing? In her mind, it is an outrage, a most politically vexatious expedition pursued by the Vice President. It was a personal outrage or bruised ego that pushed Hughes to the courts, rather than a comprehensive, sensible, well-conceived or meritorious legal case.
I will forever argue that once you decide to live the life of a politician, ascent to party leadership and run for and attain public office, there will be bouts of name- calling, labels and characterisations attached to your name. The higher you ascend in public office or the more popular you become, the higher your exposure to name-calling. Some will inevitably be personally distasteful or even offensive, but this is the life you have chosen; you know the game, you know the practicum.
It is not a vocation for the thin-skinned. When names are hurled in your direction you have to absorb and clap back when it is politically strategic to do so. You don’t curl up and shed crocodile tears and/ or throw all sorts of political tantrums. If that’s your resort, pack up and go quietly into the night of a private life.
Too many thin-skinned people are cloaked in political robes roaming the landscape pretending to be politicians. I now intertwine a quote from my earlier article referred to above. “In politics, the landscape is tougher to navigate. Politics involves more loosely defined freedom-of-speech issues, democratic accountabilities that cannot be articulated in quite the same manner as the other professions. There are boundaries that can be pushed, requiring greater elasticity of tolerance.
Certain utterances from politicians are protected in ways no other profession enjoys. In hotly contested political fields such as Guyana’s, the vitriol of name- calling can be sulfuric, with valence intensity that will make even the unknown cosmological observer puke with astonishment. My own conviction is, that once by virtue of choices you have made, put yourself up as a public spectacle, especially if you live off the public purse, you need to grow one layer of rhino skin covered by the pelt of an elephant and then some. Politics is not for the faint of heart. If you live in the public limelight, you will be tagged.
Politicians who lead parties and who have been elected to public office should not be wasting the courts’ time simply because they feel “a way” by what false name they are called. This is not to say that libellous tags should be excused, if someone calls you a thief then certainly, they would need to prove that in court. No way should a socially awkward appellation make the court’s docket.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Democracyguyana, an online newspaper.