Dear Editor,
I have had the opportunity to listen to President Donald Ramotar on the election campaign trail and his inaugural speech. What is at stake is a realization of how a genuinely democratic society has to function if we are to avoid mindless regimentation on the one hand or senseless anarchy on the other. Power in a modern society does not reside in any single source. In virtually every important context, if the underlying approach is to determine who can wield greater power, who can threaten more or browbeat better or coerce more effectively, then the laws of nature and the history of politics suggest that sooner or later, the side with greater underlying strengths and better strategy will emerge victorious. History teaches us – if we are disposed to learn – that most such victories are pyrrhic ones.
Politically, the victor may find himself presiding over a sea bitterness, a landscape from which morale is conspicuously absent and where human alienation is a pervasive factor. My view is that modern societies, especially those that wish to preserve some functioning model of democracy, should diligently seek a better way of resolving serious differences. This is especially true of developing countries like ours, which are beset with a multitude of economic problems which cannot be solved by ideological posturing or high-flown phrases. I have already publicly declared myself a social democrat on the left of the spectrum of political opinion.
I am once more saying that for societies like Guyana, given our history, our traditions, the reality of our ethnic diversity, the adverse nature of our economic conditions, our acute political sensitivities and complexities, there is no viable way forward other than dialogue for the resolution of important national and sectoral differences in this society.
I believe that the majority of the citizens of Guyana, if given an opportunity to express themselves freely on a choice between alternative ways forward would endorse the model which exalts dialogue and compromise and reject the model which leads to confrontation and a pyrrhic victory. It is possible for societies like ours to survive such ‘victories,’ but it is not possible after such ‘victories’ to maintain democracy and promote prosperity. The so-called ‘victors’ would then simply inherit the worst of both worlds. As a society, we will have to choose which path forward we elect to pursue.
On philosophical, analytical and evidential grounds, I reject both a laissez-faire capitalist model of society for Guyana, as well as a repressive, totalitarian one. Our own history – as well as that of others – can inform us about the distortions and inequities in the traditional capitalist model. One of the worst aspects of totalitarian models is their inherent intolerance of dissent; this intolerance flows, in my view, partly from an insufferable arrogance on the part of the controlling authorities in such countries, which leads them to assume not only that they are in exclusive possession of the truth, but that such exclusivity is foreordained and eternal. And partly from fear arising from a realization of the inadequacy of their positions and the vulnerability of those positions to rigorous analysis and examination, there is unwillingness to discuss or debate even the premises.
I believe in an open, democratic society by which I mean one in which the legitimacy of the governing authorities clearly derives from the free, periodic, unfettered consent of all those ordinarily eligible for the exercise of the franchise. The era of kings and emperors with real power, or self-proclaimed dictators is or ought to be over, especially in developing societies like ours. I believe in a society where the broad mass of the people can be actively involved in the decisions which affect their lives, whether at work, in their unions or in their legislatures. I believe in a society which consciously tries to achieve the highest degree of congruence between justice and equity on the one hand, by which I mean a sustained attack on poverty, ill-health and other forms of disadvantage, and levels of freedom and tolerance on the other, including the freedoms of expression and association.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Clarke
General President
Clerical & Commercial Workers’ Union
(CCWU)
