Dear Editor,
People in general look up to academics for their views on critical issues (like policies, election rigging, etc.) affecting a nation. In every society, academics tend to courageously state their views on important events and activities, but that tradition does not exist in either Guyana or Trinidad & Tobago, among a few other states in the Caribbean.
During the dictatorship and the colonial era, some academics and public figures of stature made their views known on important matters, even if they were victimised.
In the attempted election rigging of March 2, Guyanese academics were silent. They were also silent during the violations of the Constitution in the appointment of the Chair of GECOM and in the refusal of the Government to honour the no confidence motion.
The only Caribbean academic who spoke out against the electoral fraud in Guyana was Hillary Beckles, VC of UWI; he did not condemn the violation of the successful passage of the NCM. All other academics lost their voice. It was most disappointing that others, including from UG and from the UWI Trinidad branch, were silent. Even former reputable scholars who no longer depend on Government for roti were silent during the entire ordeal.
In private, a few academics (including former university lecturers) voiced their opinions in condemning the coalition, but were cowards when it came to putting their names out in public on the record against fraud. Are they not ashamed of violating basic principles of academia?
Where is their sense of fair play and justice in being silent at electoral malpractice?
Professors Lomarish Roopnarine and Baytoram Ramharack made their views known about election rigging in the mass media. I wrote voluminously against the fraud. I did (and still do) not depend on Government for roti and dhal, thus I was able to speak my mind.
Profs Wazir Mohammed and Nigel Westmaas, men who fought against electoral fraud during the Burnham/Hoyte dictatorships, were noticeably silent. Prof David Hinds excused the March 2020 electoral fraud because he did not want his party, APNU, to give up power.
The UG academics probably were fearful of losing their employment if they should publicly speak out against fraud. They were fence-sitters, playing it safe both ways.
Others, like Roopnarine, Ramharack and me, took the risk to speak out against injustice, placing ourselves on the right side of morality and law.
In the end, the academic beneficiaries were those who were silent and/or endorsed fraud. I was told they were ‘non-political’, and therefore they were rewarded with positions, promotions, and perks at UG and elsewhere. Those who were engineers and defenders of fraud continue to enjoy their benefits. Those who spoke out against fraud were ‘political’, and could not be rewarded. Regrettably, that is the twisted logic of the Guyanese society.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
