Dear Editor,
Every so often one comes upon a letter that is so ill-conceived and littered with misconceptions that one can only ascribe untoward designs to its author. Yet, notwithstanding their general irrelevance and incoherence, such items tend to use commonplace idioms that resonate with some readers to provide an illusion of meaningfulness. Such is the contribution of M Maxwell (‘Truth has no political party’ SN, December 26, 2010). In this election year we will no doubt be showered by many such pieces.
The butt of Mr Maxwell’s ire is Mr Ralph Ramkarran, but his contentions have wider consequences. Mr Maxwell wondered: “How then could Mr Ramkarran condemn the corruption, abuse of state resources, extra-judicial killings, disappearance of funds, phantom squads run by criminals, marginalization and discrimination against other groups and races, fancy cars and big houses on public servant salaries, moral degeneracy, the breakdown of the rule of law and other evils then [during the PNC regime], but maintain his silence now? … Defence of the nation, its constitution and its people demands men of a different mettle, not relics of a prehistoric mentality of party paramountcy.”
Most commentators will give the PPP/C a good chance of winning the next general elections. Indeed, on current opposition positioning, I give them better than a good chance. It follows then that the PPP/C presidential candidate is very likely to become the next president of Guyana and therefore, who this person will be is a matter of national importance. I know of no potential PPP/C presidential candidate who has publicly condemned the PPP/C for the “evils” Mr Maxwell has identified. Therefore, based on the criteria he has adumbrated, the question for him is, if not Ramkarran, then who? The only logical answer is no one in the present constitutional hierarchy of the PPP/C! The problem is that while many might feel that no one in the PPP/C hierarchy is fit to rule, there are many who think otherwise and will vote for that party. Therefore, since, the PPP/C cannot simply be wished away, the above contention is redundant.
Ralph Ramkarran does not publicly attack the PPP/C for similar reasons that the PNC leaders did not publicly attack the PNC. The existence of any operational organization requires levels of loyalty and under the Westminster system collective responsibility usually applies. But more importantly, history teaches that we should avoid making a fetish of this kind of personalized public condemnation. We should remember that insiders have contributed significantly to some of the most fundamental national and international political changes of our time and it is doubtful that they would have ever reached the position to do so had they taken to lambasting their colleagues in public.
Deng Xiaoping was part of the communist Chinese leadership during the devastations of the Cultural Revolution. Mikhail Gorbachev was very much an insider when, inter alia, the Prague Spring (in Czechoslovakia) was crushed in 1968. After years in the hierarchy of the atrocious South African apartheid regime, Frederik Willem de Klerk not only presided over the release of Nelson Mandela but in 1994 became deputy president of Mandela’s government of national unity. And of course, there is the case of our own Hugh Desmond Hoyte, who began the process of democratization and economic liberalization. Change is brought about by a dialectical interplay of various internal and external forces and is not usually entirely the result of outsider activism.
There are many other unacceptable elements in Mr Maxwell’s presentation. For instance, apart from being a recitation of sound bites, what does the following mean? “This is not a case of the minority accepting the majority’s decision. This is a case of morality. There is no minority and majority in wrongdoing. Silence breeds consent, informed or not, implicit or explicit. Life is a series of choices. Mr Ramkarran must politically live and die by his.”
Firstly, politics is only about morality to the extent that everything can be said to be about morality. There is no discernable and unbreachable moral content attached to every political action. In my view, political decisions are usually measured against the big picture and along the way, numerous ‘secondary’ moral principles may have to be discarded. If this were not so, we would not have many of the wars and political quarrels we have today.
Secondly, I do not know of any PPP/C leader who would claim to support the “crimes” referred to by Mr Maxwell. Therefore, at one level (the level of principle) the moral issue is closed. It is at the level of action (what to do about these allegations) that we could sensibly speak of morality. Here, however, it is organizational power that controls action and being in the minority or majority can be most relevant.
In 1983, at a time when Ralph Ramkarran and the PPP were denouncing cooperative socialism as utopian socialism and he was actively involved in anti-PNC activities, I was principal of Kuru Kuru Cooperative College and asked him if he would teach commercial law to prospective managers of cooperative societies. After some consideration, he agreed and taught for about three years (and on occasions bringing his then young family to swim in the Kuru Kuru Creek), until his legal practice made it impossible for him to continue. I consulted no one before employing Mr Ramkarran and so far as I know, no one ever said a single hostile word to him.
We have remained friends since then, and contrary to the view that if you are not in a public quarrel with your colleagues you are silent, I can say without a doubt that Ralph has been far from silent. In various articles and letters he has publicly outlined his ‘anti-dictatorial’ activities while a student and during the PNC regime.
For many years he also worked as the PPP representative on the Elections Commission and has been very much a part of our most recent constitutional reform process. But I believe that even the opposition parties would not deny that despite the democratic centralist nature of the PPP, as Speaker of the National Assembly, Ralph Ramkarran has tried his best to be even-handed.
During his tenure the parliament has been so transformed for the better that even those who have been major humbugs to the transformation process, can speak of Guyana as having the most democratic parliament in the Caribbean. Of course, the latter is nonsense; constitutions are not good in themselves and must provide a consensual framework for settled democratic development. I have argued elsewhere that “we need to guard against confusing our Westminster-type parliamentary possibilities with the type of reforms that are required if the ethnic divide is to ease and Guyana is to realise its great potential.” (‘We should guard against confusing our Westminster-type parliamentary possibilities …’SN, December 22, 2009)
It is well known that I hold the position that only immediate radical shared governance can extricate Guyana from her present depths of despair. Ralph Ramkarran differs from that position and speaks of gradually introducing greater levels of inclusiveness. But I am aware that he has submitted progressive proposals to the PPP for constitutional, local government and other reforms, and has made sensible contributions on many issues such as inclusiveness, corruption, etc.
But when it comes down to it, much of politics is about style and class. Politics is like a pantomime: it should give people a good feeling. I am not speaking just of good etiquette, dress and such things, but also of people’s awareness of the existence of an open and non-dogmatic environment.
Although I do not believe that the PPP/C is ready for the likes of Ralph Ramkarran, it is my conviction that his wide-ranging experience, integrity, general demeanour and commitment to fairness and dispassionate discussion make him the best PPP/C candidate. Indeed, I will go further to say that in relation to their specific historical constituencies, he is arguably the only person in the PPP/C who is likely to give the PNC/R and the AFC sleepless nights.
Yours faithfully,
Henry B Jeffrey
