Dear Editor,
Before I am misunderstood, I state categorically that I believe in Jagan’s principle of a tri-sector economy with the private sector playing a major role. I believe the private sector must be protected within reason, and that we must support the private sector by consuming as much as possible what they produce. I also believe the private sector must develop some level of patriotism and not be blinded by the lure of capital accumulation as an end in itself, but see itself as the holder of social capital in which reinvestment is vital to the developmental needs of the country. If the bank holds social capital and makes the borrowing of it economically restrictive in terms of high interest rates it is doing Guyana a disservice.
Emile Mervin in his letter in the SN on July 4, captioned ‘Zelaya played a role in his own ouster,’ claims that he is “against any coup that overthrows a democratically elected government” not because it is wrong but because they tend to set a precedent. Interesting!
And he goes around the mulberry bush to justify what happened to the Honduran President, Zelaya. He is not totally against the coup because Zelaya appeared to “be seeking a third term to prevent his government’s corruption from being exposed,” however, he is overthrown because of the very corruption that he would have hidden as the incumbent in another term.
Mr Mervin sees the real reason for the coup as the corruption and cronyism of Zelaya’s government, and not just his attempt to extend his term by holding a referendum.
If Zelaya is seeking the democratic way as prescribed by the constitution to change the limit he is effectively allowing the electorate to make that decision in a democratic manner.
The coup leaders on the other hand could have produced the evidence and used legal means which were available under the said constitution to take him to the court, which from the evidence seems to be independent of Zelaya, and have him tried for the corruption. And this is different from the situation in the USA where the court staged a coup against Al Gore and placed the extreme right into power.
On the day of the referendum the legislative body, the courts, and the military placed Zelaya on a plane to Costa Rica. This thwarted the will of the electorate which Mr Mervin seems to be an advocate of. When Chávez opted to go to the electorate there were protests by the opposition supported by so called ‘democratic’ countries. There was violence by the opposition led and controlled by the economic elites who do not want the will of the electorate to be exercised.
Mr Mervin sees Zelaya’s association with Chávez as a miscalculation, and another good reason, I suppose, for the coup. In this case a lot of Caribbean countries should be overthrown. Here again we see the role of the economic elites which do not want to see democracy if it would lead to them losing their grip on political power.
Mr Mervin sees redirecting the heat to them as Zelaya’s second miscalculation, since this “elite class is the money generating class or the private sector,” and the government needs them. I more want to believe, while admitting their much-needed entrepreneurial activities, it is the money appropriating class, and that the working class which includes the professionals, etc, that is the money generating class; it is the workers that produce the wealth.
What happened to Jagan shows how the elite economic class can act to strangle working-class governments.
Mr Mervin says he has not seen tangible benefits to the people being promoted by Chávez, Castro and company. He did not also see the almost absolute marginalization of the people of Latin America by the economic elites. He did not also see the bloody dictator Batista in Cuba being supported by the USA. He has not seen more access to health, education and land by the ordinary Venezuelans.
I guess the economic elites would consider the USA’s destabilization of Cheddi Jagan’s government was OK, even if fomenting racial riots was the method utilised. And was it not the same USA that removed the democratically elected government of Iran and placed into power one of the bloodiest dictatorships the world has known? The same happened in Chile where the USA placed another bloody dictator in power by removing an elected government. And we can go on and on.
The discussion of economic structures, class, race and democracy needs to be developed and deepened. I do not believe, however, the economic elites would want to utilize their papers and television stations to facilitate this.
The state-owned TV and radio stations have unfortunately not done anything much to facilitate the spread of the working-class ideology which was an essential part of Jagan’s legacy, nor has the Red House under the leadership of Mr Sattaur, who was recently reinstated by the President after his service was terminated by the NCN Board.
Yours faithfully,
Rajendra Bisessar
