By Ryhaan Shah
“Civility is about more than just politeness, although politeness is a necessary first step. It is about disagreeing without disrespect, seeking common ground as a starting point for dialogue about differences, listening past one’s preconceptions, and teaching others to do the same. Civility is the hard work of staying present even with those with whom we have deep-rooted and fierce disagreements. It is political in the sense that it is a necessary prerequisite for civic action. But it is political, too, in the sense that it is about negotiating interpersonal power such that everyone’s voice is heard, and nobody’s is ignored. And civility begins with us.”
That quote from The Institute for Civility in Government in the US says it all very clearly. Several recent incidents involving members of the Granger Government have raised this discussion yet again about the need for civility in political and civic discourse. The first question, however, is whether the State really cares to foster meaningful dialogue among politicians and civilians, since civility is not a societal or political behaviour that is being encouraged at any level.
Incivility began in the post-independence years and became embedded as the new normal as our racial/ethnic political strife grew and overtook all civil discourse. Our general elections are like enjoined battles and the resulting victor behaves as if the country and people are the spoils of war and hostage to whatever the elected government decides no matter whether unconstitutional, illegal or undemocratic.
In fact, incivility has no time or space for those norms that are the bedrock of a civilised state. The Burnham era of dictatorship allowed no opposition and opposition voices and marked the demise of civility as a desired component of political and civic discourse.
The PPP/C Administration that followed was marred by its own scandals of arrogance and unethical conduct by Ministers who were caught making sexist remarks, Attorney General Anil Nandlall; and using threatening behaviour and language, Minister Bheri Ramsarran, towards a female political activist.
Not many want to make the undisputable connection between the State-managed and State-funded annual vulgarity called Mashramani, which presents crass indecency as the accepted national “sport”, and the breakdown of civil behaviour and discourse which is clearly evident at the very top of Governmental circles and which seeps through to every societal level as the standard of behaviour. In brief: we are taught to have bad manners and uncivil conduct.
Just recently, Public Security Minister Khemraj Ramjattan had to apologise to the media for his coarse remark in response to a journalist’s question. Perhaps, Ramjattan is under tremendous stress, not only because of the continuing high crime, but because he finds that he has made a political alliance that puts him on the wrong side of history and brings into question his political astuteness.
Still, leaders are expected to display grace under pressure. It is one of the qualities people expect from leadership.
Just this past week, “Kaieteur News” published a letter written by GECOM Chair, Justice James Patterson (rtd) which was an appalling and indecent bit of pompous verbiage. It revealed Patterson as a man who is without professional civility or personal dignity.
His uncivil display of opprobrium towards Auditor General Deodat Sharma is a matter for national discussion only because President David Granger placed him in that important chairmanship through what was a personal and unilateral decision that defied both the letter and spirit of the law.
Despite 18 qualified nominees presented to him by Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, Granger picked Patterson as the man most fit, proper and qualified to be the GECOM Chairman.
Perhaps, the all-important criterion was Patterson’s long-standing membership of the People’s National Congress (PNC), and this appointment has drawn criticisms and raised suspicions that Granger’s move was necessary to put in place a GECOM Chair who would not stand in the way of a PNC plan to rig the 2020 General Elections.
The matter to note here is that incivility as it pertains to governance almost always goes hand-in-hand with corruption and autocracy. Uncivil behaviour is part and parcel of the bullying tactics needed if the leadership is to run roughshod over the rule of law.
The incivility of the Granger Government is dispensed not only through boorishness, unlawful behaviour and serial corruptions but through its vengeance towards People’s Progressive Party supporters, Indian Guyanese, which has served to widen the political/ethnic divide.
Guyana is in a bad place. Granger is making good on his promise to drag Guyana backward to its troubled Burnhamist past. Expect the incivility to get worse.
