In the upcoming elections, voters will have a choice between proven altruism and egoism

Dear Editor,
Fomenting strife and/or civil unrest in Guyana are not yet commonplace, but incidents seem to be increasing, especially with general elections fast-approaching.
By soliciting or drumming up public support – whether in the form of philanthropic dispensation, dubious claims of community representation, the advocacy of Afro-centric racism, or a call to action against anti-law enforcement practices – promoters of civil disturbance seem to be frequently orchestrating anti-Government resistance, instigating protest, or inciting violence primarily aimed at optimising the ascendency of dubious political aspirants. In this regard, could the 4/5/25 anti-Government resistance standoff at Azruddin’s home hold some clues? Let’s examine.
According to newspaper and video accounts, on 4/5/25, an “angry mob”, hurling insults and threats, confronted Government officials who arrived at Azruddin Mohamed’s secured, gated residence. Authorized to take possession of some luxury vehicles for unpaid taxes owed to the Government, the assigned officials and their police escort immediately found themselves face-to-face with an aggressive, boisterous crowd, which intimidated them into retreating in fear.
Whether intentional or not, this raucous incident prompts a few thought-provoking questions:
(i) Was it prudent or reasoned politics for a philanthropist and political aspirant to grant assemblage to a ‘hostile crowd’ practically at his doorstep, in preparation to hurl threats at Government officials seeking to execute the law?
(ii) What verifiable assurances can Azruddin provide to attest that such crowd mobilization would not spill over into other legitimate Government assessments, protocols, or regulations that he finds distasteful?
(iii) What is the likelihood that such crowd mobilization would not find expression in aggression and violence against political rivals fiercely critical of Azruddin, if he declares himself a political candidate?
In the absence of valid answers/assurances, these questions become worthy of ponder.
Indeed, Guyanese recipients can readily affirm the Mohameds’ generosity, especially since their awards help in improving the lives and circumstances of many. While admired for their charity, the incident at Azruddin’s home and his reported interest in electoral politics call into question the aim or objective of his generosity. Is it altruistic or egoistic?
Altruistic Philanthropy is the charitable award of one’s resources to help others, or to positively impact social outcomes. For example: bring about changes that would improve the lives and relations in communities and society. Customarily purported to serve in the interest of recipients – the individual, community, or society – philanthropic donations selflessly given, without expectations of reciprocity or personal gain, would be deemed altruistic. But when given with selfish expectations: to facilitate, promote, hasten, or enhance the pre-eminence of the donor as an honourable individual, then the donation becomes one of Egoistic Philanthropy. In toto, Egoistic Philanthropy is awarded with expectations of personal gain: to popularize, promote, or enhance the donor’s worthiness, self-interest and/or celebrity.
Given the contrasting distinctions, the onus rests with the Guyanese electoral public to decide whether an individual indulges in Altruistic or Egoistic Philanthropy. It would be presumptuous to assume that Guyanese cannot make reasoned decisions for themselves in regard to the aim/objective of philanthropic distributions.
In relation to the above, it should be noted that altruistic and egoistic behavioural proclivities extend beyond the dichotomization of philanthropy. Ever since the French sociologist and philosopher Auguste Comte introduced the terms in the early 1850, philosophers, social and natural scientists have applied altruistic and egoistic differentiations in their studies of behaviours, with some focusing on political leadership. For example, the term an altruistic political leader refers to someone committed to addressing and serving the needs, interests, and wellbeing of all citizens, rather than his/her own.
Possessing qualities similar to that of a Servant Leader, an altruistic political leader dedicates himself/herself to communal and national growth and development. At the personal level, the altruistic servant-political leader exudes humility and modesty, and exhibits an adeptness at relating to, and interacting with, constituents. For numerous Guyanese, Irfaan Ali exemplifies such a leader.
What are your thoughts?
In contrast to the altruistic servant-political leader, the egoistic leader acts primarily in his/her own self-interest, is prone to self-promotion, and is insensitive to the overall needs and interests of citizens, or the development of the entire country.
An egoistic political leader seldom relies on the advice of others, trusting instead his/her own abilities to promulgate and articulate community and national policies. Often aloof and displaying autocratic tendencies, the egoistic political leader relishes praise, and often promotes himself/herself as a visionary of national development and progress.
How many are in your midst?
Given the contrast, voters could easily identify the political leader(s) with altruistic or egoistic personality traits, someone whom they consider worthy of support. While no-one can claim to have a monopoly on altruistic or egoistic behavioural tendencies and practices, the extent to which an individual exhibits altruistic characteristics over egoistic characteristics – and vice versa – helps to determine trustworthiness. It is in this regard that Guyanese can make informed decisions about their lived conditions, and determine whose political leadership, or party, can best govern in accordance with the needs and interests of all.
For those who may be apprehensive, feel free to mull for yourselves the following statement.
Historically, when wealth and egoism become the primary criterion for one’s ascendency into political prominence and leadership, the poor and working class are damned. For in leadership, triumph or tribulation dominates. Hence, your informed and responsible decision matters.

Yours sincerely,
Narayan Persaud, PhD
Professor Emeritus