Subversive majority?

Dear Editor,

What passes for the Guyana mind appears to have been moulded over the last several years, whether deliberately or unconsciously, into a state of mouldiness, which only reproduces stale unappetising materials and repetitive ideas that do not relate to current realities. It is as if the expression ‘the die is cast’ can be interpreted by those listening longingly to ‘mouldy’ pronouncements to mean ‘die and be buried.’

Accordingly those who dominate the audio media, as well as take recourse to limited print media, do not seem to monitor the recordings for the several iterations of undusted ideologies; or just possibly the technology used includes an intelligent self-erasing mechanism that results in the pontificates not being able to hear themselves.

The condition is the obverse of amnesia, wherein only the past is recalled to serve self in the present. So that the shift in a parliamentary majority vote of any dimension is myopically seen as destabilising democracy. How can any common sense not apprehend that it is the citizens of this country who, through ‘democratic’ elections, awarded the majority in Parliament? Are they to be regarded as subversives? Are they to understand that ‘democracy’ is an entitlement only of the ‘minority’? It is a remarkable construct that deserves a comprehensive rationalisation that is plausible to our regional partners, the international community and institutions with interests in, and intelligence of, democratic governance elsewhere. All of the latter, like our citizens, would wonder why a ‘no confidence’ becomes an aberration in the democratic process. At this juncture of our political subsistence, there are lessons to be learnt from the recent elections in the USA. One can detect a substantive relevance to this country’s circumstances. Over the past 72 hours several political analysts have observed that the Republicans initially had committed themselves to diminish the efficacy of the Obama administration from its very start in 2008, the outcomes of which having been evaluated, were rejected by the electorate in 2012. That party, in recognition of this dilemma, has quickly responded with promises of a policy change from implacability to compromise. Even though the posture may be one of expediency, it nevertheless portrays admission of a possible new dispensation. It at least indicates a level of intelligence, certainly consciousness, of the need for re-strategising.

What a substantive contrast is discernible between this projected strategy change, the adjusted communication tactics, their implications, and the entrenched insensitivity and utter defensiveness, reflective of an instinctive constipation, as displayed locally.

In comparing the respective governance contexts, the former approach is both an inherent and explicit exemplar which should provide profound pause for, and incentive towards, local contending parties better activating a truly democratic component of compromise and collaboration, not just amongst themselves, but more importantly with their electorate/s.

They must also be mindful of the country’s high ratings on the relevant international index for our determination to promote the debilitation of the citizenry. Confrontation contrived can never contribute to the development and sustainability we all desperately seek.

Yours faithfully,
E B John



Join the Conversation

After you comment, click Post. If you're not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.

The Comments section is intended to provide a forum for reasoned and reasonable debate on the newspaper's content and is an extension of the newspaper and what it has become well known for over its history: accuracy, balance and fairness. We reserve the right to edit/delete comments which contain attacks on other users, slander, coarse language and profanity, and gratuitous and incendiary references to race and ethnicity. We moderate ALL comments, so your comment will not be published until it has been reviewed by a moderator.