Editor,
In a previous letter I took issue with Mr. Nigel Hinds’ claim that the agreements by the PPP/C and APNU+AFC that their smaller coalition party should gain the premiership is racist and a restriction of human rights’ (SN: 08/01/2020). In response he quoted the late Dr. Walter Rodney to shore up his position but of what I am not yet certain. However, whether he knows it or not, the quotation he chose touches the heart of discussions about the ethnic problem in Guyana and his incorrect reading of it can contribute to making the reform discourse poorer.
Before proceeding, however, let me briefly dismiss some misconceptions found in Mr. Hinds’ response to my critique of him. Mr. Hinds, my country examples were for the readers to compare and contrast how countries with similar difficulties to Guyana have attempted to solve their problems. This is a normal way of constructing this kind of analysis and it is truly amazing that you could have concluded that I presented them as ‘models of paradise’ (08/01/2020)! So sir, when you next speak to your friend who informed you that Belgium is in a political mess, you should let him know that Guyana is also a mess that has cost hundreds of lives and millions in lost property in its modern history. Mr. Hinds, I am certain that you misspoke when you claimed that I ‘compare(d) ANUG (A New and United Guyana) to Switzerland’: I understand your intention but do believe that the Swiss way of governing is worthy of our consideration.
That said, Mr. Hinds quoted Rodney as follows: ‘Where do you want to go and where are we going, (is) in some senses even irrespective of our will, because of processes operating in these said countries and if it is that you don’t find a model of a society that suits you at the present moment, that is not an argument against the ongoing processes of change, because one does not have to have a model of the idea realized before one says that it is realizable.’ Mr. Hinds then said, ‘I do hope Dr. Jeffrey is inspired by Walter Rodney to believe that Guyanese can have a model of governance that is not based on racial division and restriction of human rights” (SN: 10/01/2020).
This quotation from Rodney has a considerable lineage in political thought, was at the base of James Stuart Mill’s discussion of ethnically divided countries since about 1861, and over the years a central position of my Future Notes column when it spoke to Guyana. What I take Rodney to be saying is that sometimes societies move in directions that our will cannot immediately change but that this should not prevent us from making adjustments to improve the situation and there need not exist an actual example of what one is trying to accomplish to say that what is being proposed is ‘realisable.’
However, to inspire someone to implement a proposal of any sort requires not merely asserting its possibility but, at the very least, conceptually demonstrating that the proposal is ‘realisable.’ So if Mr. Hinds believes that Guyanese can have a model of governance that ‘is not based on racial division and restriction of human rights’ – whatever he means by this phrase – he cannot simply make an assertion but must properly conceptually define, develop and be prepared to defend such a proposal. Unfortunately, nowhere has he done this or even appear to understand that he needs to do this, but still hopes to inspire Jeffrey et al ‘to believe that Guyanese can have a model of governance that is not based on racial division and restriction of human rights!’ Of course, he could have only have done so and turn to Rodney for support because he mistakenly associates Rodney’s juxtaposition of the real and the realisable with the dream-like commonplace state that ‘all things are possible!’
Dreams aside, we should all be prepared to consider various proposals and I for one am ready to consider any ‘realisable’ proposal Mr. Hinds may make to seriously diminish the negative effects of the ethnic problem in Guyana at the same time as it eschews ‘racial division!’
Yours faithfully,
Henry Jeffrey
