The philosopher Immanuel Kant succinctly posed the dilemma of organising a just state, two centuries ago, in these terms: “The problem of organising a state, however hard it may seem, can be solved, even for a race of devils, if only they are intelligent. The problem is, given a multitude of rational beings requiring universal laws for their preservation, but each of them is sincerely inclined to exempt himself from them, to establish a Constitution in such a way, although their private intentions conflict, they check each other, with the result that their public conduct is the same as if they had no such intentions.”
In Guyana, with good reason, there exist great suspicions in the people as to the motives of those who propose “solutions” to our national problems. Throughout our history, institutions have been tinkered with, purportedly for the “good” of the people, but invariably it was later seen to have benefited either one person or one group. Guyanese are understandably concerned about the “smartmen” who jockey for advantage on behalf of themselves or their group. Any initiative, or set of initiatives, that are offered to address Guyana’s political crisis will have to engender broad acceptance across the political, ethnic and other divisions in the people and especially among the politicians. This implies that the various groups, as they define themselves, would have to agree on the proposals for establishing the institutions to govern them.
In the opening line of his first section in his magnum opus A Theory of Justice, John Rawls boldly declared that the principle of “justice” is the standard that would generate the broad acceptability for the establishment of any institution necessary to implement any initiative for enduring stability: “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.” Recognising that Guyana does not even reach Rawls’ definition of a society as “a cooperative venture for mutual advantage, it is typically marked by a conflict as well as by an identity of interests”, his definition of “justice” is yet very pertinent to our effort to construct a democratic state in Guyana: “…a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society and they define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation”.
In Guyana, we all have to appreciate that the existence of the state itself is for the furtherance of the societal good – the public interest. Ultimately, we believe that all Guyanese are looking to be culturally authentic, politically secure, and economically sound. In the furtherance of these “public goods”, the people have to promulgate a constitution through which the Government directs the state through policies and programmes in consonance with the prime directives of the Constitution. In modern democracies, under the liberal paradigm, equality of treatment and equality before the law of the citizens stand at the very top of the imperatives.
In Guyana, a feeling of injustice is pervasive in all groups in the society as they struggle to live in dignity – especially within the political, economic, and cultural spheres. The history of Guyana has demonstrated the importance of context in the introduction of institutions into society – whether these are in the political, economic, or cultural spheres. The institutions will have to be seen as just. Rules that go against the values and morals of a people or lead to injustice will be observed in the breach or not at all; the institution will at best be ignored or at worst lead to dysfunctional social behaviour.
In Guyana, we would have to derive our substantive principles of justice for ourselves based on our history and present realities. Slavery and indentureship have been the two historical forces that have had the greatest impact on our collective psyche and our disparate cultures. Out of our experienceswhere they were denied, the values of liberty and equality are central to what we desire for the “good life”. These values must be central to any institution that seeks to address any aspect of our national life.
