We are enmeshed in another round of polemics, this time albeit expressed in highly scatological terms that putatively seek to push political action towards the arc of “justice” in Guyana. There is nothing wrong, and in fact everything right, about this (save for the scatology) since this might help make the outcome “variable sum”, rather than “zero sum”. When the political philosopher John Rawls declared: “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions as truth is of every systems of thought” it was because justice goes to the content of political action. Justice is paramount. However what is disputed in Guyana is the nature of the vehicles in this push for “justice” and the modus operandi of the players.
But what about the need for “truth” in the system of thought that is deployed to struggle for justice in social institutions? The ideology? Today, liberalism, which had swept the field as our ideology of choice by “all the sides” after our socialist experiments, appears to be in utter disarray as illustrated by US President Trump’s “might is right” orientation. However, I believe that liberalism’s stance on “truth and reason” in the variant dubbed “deliberative liberalism” still offers us a practical approach towards a viable democratic process that can deliver “justice” in our social institutions.
As in science, deliberative liberalism holds that truth is to be found through reason but the “truth” unearthed is never held as if it is the “TRUTH”. It is always held provisionally, with the acceptance that it may be overturned based on some new evidence. The outcomes of deliberative liberalism are indeterminate and are based on empirical practice. I recommend this approach to those who will enter the ongoing discussion on justice in the distribution of the national patrimony. However, only “public reasons” should be proffered in such deliberations; never assertions rising solely on faith or dogma. This requirement would obviously place burdens on some groups, but such burdensomeness itself would be evaluated by reason for its “degree of burdensomeness” caused by arbitrariness etc. If scatology, for instance, is an aspect of some group’s identity as has been asserted, then this should be withheld from the public realm since it does not further rational discourse. When VP Vance pointedly responded to “President Zelensky”, he was implicitly chiding the latter for breaking protocol in the Oval Office by addressing him as “JD”.
Moving to the substantive content of the assertions behind the scatology, there is the contention, for instance, that the PPP discriminates against African Guyanese in its development program. There is nothing wrong about this in a democracy: we have suggested governments issue “Ethnic Impact Statements” on the various projects, which are backed by data. That such data is available is shown by various assertions; most recently by James Bond and earlier on housing by PM Phillips. But the Opposition must also present credible data to back up their claims and not simply make incendiary statements punctuated by scatological miasma.
One hurdle that must be overcome, is the insistence by some that individuals from competing groups cannot speak to “their” ethnic concerns. We have thankfully gone past the old dogma of not even mentioning such concerns. It is contended that the major parties – the PPP and PNC – that define themselves as “multi-ethnic” are dominated by one or the other major ethnic group (PPP – Indian Guyanese; PNC – African Guyanese) and cannot speak authentically for the “other”, even though they have members or officers from that group. There is the concern of “tokenism” and “window dressing” that ostensibly brought down the scatological fire and brimstone from one quarter. Presently, such concerns should be expected, sans scatology, and we have suggested that each party accept the institution of “ethnic caucuses” to address them. As in the US Democratic party, these ethnic caucuses meet separately and they present to the party executive, their suggestions on issues affecting their ethnic group.
We will have to be prepared to deliberate with each other in every for available forum: Newspapers letters pages, community meetings, town hall meetings, call-in talk shows, books etc. But we have to respect each other as citizens and abjure the sterility of polemics, especially those laced with scatology. Where has that ever produced a new idea? As an aside from my experience in Parliament, I would propose Parliamentary Committees, rather than the Procrustean floor of Parliament, be used more frequently for settling our political differences.
