The unanimity of the various faiths on the subject of casino gambling has clearly taken the government off guard. After more than thirteen years in office those who hold the reins of power in this land have become intolerant of opposing views and openly dismissive of those who promote them. Given the way that Parliament has functioned and the main opposition has operated since 1992, the ruling party has rarely found itself constrained to pay attention to its critics. Its standard modus operandi when questions are raised about its policies or practices is to rail against those expressing the contrary views rather than address in a rational fashion any arguments they might have raised.
And so it was on January 11, when certain PPP/C Members of Parliament launched into a tirade about the Christian churches with accusations ranging from the irrelevant to the just plain vulgar and including one which was distinctly bizarre. The issue was not, as new Minister and Member Desrey Fox was at pains to suggest, that the Christian churches were hypocritical, but whether any of the concerns about casino gambling which they had voiced had substance. For his part Minister of Home Affairs Clement Rohee wagged his finger disapprovingly at the National Assembly and repeating himself slowly lest he be misconstrued, delivered himself of the view that religious bodies had no place in state business. If he meant that constitutionally speaking Guyana is a secular state, there is no doubt that he is correct; however, like any other citizen or body the churches enjoy freedom of speech and are entitled to be heard and receive a civil response to whatever reasoned arguments they may advance.
In the past the governing party has always been careful not to antagonize any of the faiths – or by extension their members – if for no other reason than it might alienate voters. But they have just emerged from an election with a substantial majority, and perhaps confusing Christian adherents with opposition voters calculated that they could risk this unprecedented anti-Christian fusillade. Neverthe-less, the fact they went so far in an area where they would normally operate with caution is an indication of how important it is to them to get the gambling bill passed by the House. What the administration seems not to have anticipated – although they were certainly given warning – was that after the parliamentary debate the week before last, the Hindu, Muslim and Baha’i leadership would come out publicly against casinos, thereby aligning themselves with their Christian brethren. It is an almost unprecedented situation in relation to resistance to a government measure, superseding completely the traditional political divisions of this country, and leaving the parliamentary opposition somewhat on the sidelines. While this may no longer be the church-going society it once was, nevertheless, the population overwhelmingly comprises believers of one kind or another, and when the leaders of all the faiths present a united front, prima facie at any rate, they potentially are speaking for a significant proportion of the population.
On Friday during a two-hour meeting with the heads of all the religions President Jagdeo was in damage control mode, apologizing to the Christian leaders for the statements made by Mr Rohee and Dr Fox in Parliament. In the National Assembly itself, the Minister of Home Affairs adopted a better modulated tone being reported as saying that apart from the moral issues arising from casino gambling, the economic, social and financial benefits were of equal importance to the society. It was not an argument likely to recommend itself to the religious leaders. We have written before in these columns about the spheres of private and public morality, and the impossibility of secular governments legislating for every ‘sin.’ Having said that, however, if an activity were to lead to immoral consequences in the form of criminal behaviour, then any economic benefits which might accrue to the nation as a consequence of that activity could not be justified. And that is really what we are talking about in this instance. The leaders of the various faiths themselves have expressed a range of views in relation to the larger question of gambling in general, but the lowest common denominator uniting secular and religious opinion on the specific amendment currently before Parliament is the fear of criminal penetration of casino operations and the facilitation of money laundering. No one is persuaded that any measures the government puts in place will be able to deal with that particular problem, including proposed new legislation. The existing Money Laundering Act has been on the statute books for more than six years, but has never been made operational, as a consequence of which no money launderer has ever appeared before the courts.
Perhaps the government is missing the temper of the nation, something which – leaving aside their specific moral and religious objections for the moment – the leaders of the different faiths may in a sense be reflecting. Maybe in a kind of inchoate way the general opposition to casinos is a reaction against both the sleaze which threatens to engulf the society and the new breed of businessmen who now parade themselves so openly in the community. And who can avoid the impression that the state itself has become contaminated by that sleaze. The fear that everyone has that legitimizing casino gaming will contribute to corruption in the state as well as the society at large, is not an abstract fear; it is based in the first instance on the experience of other countries, but far more important, on the experience of this one over the past few years.
It must be presumed that the government never intended serious consultations on the amendment which would permit casinos, because they had already committed themselves to some of the hoteliers. At the beginning of March last year Mr Jagdeo told the Christian leaders that casino gambling might be the only thing which could justify major investments in the hotel industry, given the low level of visitor arrivals. At that time he cited the example of the proposed 14-storey hotel in Kingston built at a cost of US$70M, the expenditure for which could only be justified, he said, if the proprietors got casino licences. The head of state had nevertheless assured the Christian leaders that there would be detailed consultations before any legislation was taken to Parliament, but in the event there was only a hurried, last-minute effort to hold some discussions at the end of last year. It would be hardly surprising, therefore, if the heads of the various religious communities thought that the government had not acted towards them in good faith, a conclusion which might have been confirmed in their minds after the January 11 parliamentary debate.
Tomorrow, no doubt, the government will once again attempt to steamroll through the National Assembly the Gambling Prevention (Amendment) Bill 2006. If so it will be evidence that they have lost touch with public sentiment, and are contemptuous of concerns in many quarters about the direction the society is taking.
