Dear Editor,
Attorney Murseline Bacchus made what looked like a nice, neat defence of Attorney General Anil Nandlall’s taped threats in relation to KN. (SN, November 28). He framed his arguments in response to someone calling for formal charges. Little does he know that formal charges are the least of the concerns of citizens in a democracy. The rank lawless and threatening behaviour of the AG portends greater danger to the social fabric of the society.
Let us say that Attorney Bacchus has a good argument, namely, that under the statutes cited, the AG committed no chargeable offence. Does this mean that a Minister of the government can commit any outrageous act but as long as this does not violate a statute, he is deemed to be in good standing to serve in the cabinet? Does Mr Bacchus have the least concern about the moral codes of behaviour that the citizens expect of a sitting AG?
Didn’t the Attorney General suggest that his “friend,” reporter Gildarie got out of KN for safety reasons? Was that just bluff? Didn’t the AG use degrading language about a particular woman? None of this seems to bother Murseline Bacchus. This letter reveals a lot more about the character and values of the defender Mr Bacchus than perhaps the offender AG Nandlall.
Growing up in the villages of Guyana, I have heard Indians pulling caste status as a way to demand respect from their fellow villagers. “Me a barn bramhan (or chatree) and I will not tolerate ayou chamar.” This has been a frequent refrain delivered in village rows, and it was common among first and second generation Indians (1890s-1960s). The fact is that Indians have
become quite educated today, and have mostly spurned the use of caste status. It was therefore both shocking and revealing of the character of the man who holds the title of Attorney-General in a modern civilized nation to resurrect such backward uses of the caste system. It was an outrage committed by the AG that speaks to his lack of a broad education and lack of good sense, notwithstanding him possessing a law degree.
I would like to cite another event in which a Cabinet minister had been fired, not for violating a statutory law, but for committing gaffes. I refer to Earl Butz who served in Nixon and Reagan’s cabinets.
At the 1974 World Food Conference in Rome, Butz made fun of Pope Paul VI’s opposition to “population control” by quipping, in a mock Italian accent: “He no playa the game, he no maka the rules.” A spokesman for Cardinal Cooke of the New York archdiocese demanded an apology, and the White House requested that he apologize. Butz promptly apologized.
Some time later news outlets revealed a racist remark Butz made in front of entertainers Pat Boone and Sonny Bono and former White House counsel John Dean while aboard a
commercial flight to California following the 1976 Republican National Convention. The October 18, 1976 issue of Time reported the comment while obscuring its vulgarity.
Telegrams and calls into the White House by the thousands were fast and furious. Within 48 hours President Ford asked Butz to resign. And Butz complied.
In my opinion what AG Nandlall did was infinitely more outrageous than anything Earl Butz did. But here is quick comparison and contrast of two democratic societies: In the USA, if Ford hadn’t fired Butz he would have risked alienating Catholic and African-American voters; in Guyana President Ramotar doesn’t risk alienating any group of voters. And this comparison offers an ugly definition of the nature of Guyana’s democracy. Also their ideas of moral leadership as well as the consciences of Ford and Ramotar are very different.
As a Guyanese who logged as many hours as any other activist for free and fair elections in the New York area (including Arjune Karshan, formerly Ambassador to Suriname), I am deeply concerned not only generally about the unravelling of the social fabric of Guyanese society, but specifically about the corruption of too many lawyers and the failure of the judiciary to play its part to uphold the rule of law.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
