Are Guyanese witnessing an evolving dictatorship?
DEAR EDITOR:
The type of governance being exercised by the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) has been described by its chief spokesperson as “Democratic Centralism”.
However, after taking note of recent happenings in Guyana, namely: 1) the disbanding of Neighbourhood Democratic Councils, and the wanton imposition of Interim Management Committees; 2) the secrecy surrounding the “Intelligence Gathering Centre”, NICIL, Lotto funds, contracts, overpayment of contractors, Marriott hotel, Cheddi Jagan International Airport, Specialty Hospital, and other projects; 3) the still unexplained, unauthorized shipment(s) of gold bullion to another territory; 4) the lack of any meaningful punitive, or corrective measures in the NCN and NDIA scandals; 5) the lack of Presidential assent to the long promised “Freedom of Information Bill”; 6) the increasing arrogance on the part of several high-ranking government officials, and their apparent contempt for the citizens of Guyana; 7) the importation of Chinese workers (and possible voters) using Guyanese taxpayers’ money; 8) the reluctance of functionaries to release information which one would expect to be in the public domain, unless sanctioned by the CEO; and especially, 9) the manner in which broadcasting licences were allocated and distributed, have vividly brought back to mind George Orwell’s “1984”, and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World Revisited”. Given the foregoing, it begs the question: “Are Guyanese witnessing an evolving dictatorship”?
Huxley, commenting on “Propaganda Under a Dictatorship”, reports that Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister for Armaments, at his trial as a war criminal after the Second World War, described the Nazi tyranny and analyzed its methods.
Albert Speer said: “Hitler’s dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. It was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development that made complete use of all technical means for the domination of its own citizens. Through technical devices like the radio and loudspeaker, eighty million Germans were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man”.
Does the scenario described in the above paragraph bear any similarity to what has been taking place in Guyana for some time now, and to the obscene attempt by the former President Jagdeo, through his friends, to take complete control of Guyana’s airwaves?
Guyanese should bear in mind two things: 1) Guyana’s population is less than 800 000 people (under one-hundredth of Germany’s 80 millions in the 1930s); and, 2) the broadcasting technology now available to former President Jagdeo and his friends is infinitely superior, and far more pervasive than it was in Hitler’s time some seventy odd years ago.
Would it not be much easier to peddle the various shades of “State propaganda”, exclude other perspectives, or views of the world, stifle freedom of expression, thus depriving Guyanese of alternative and independent thought while subjecting them to “former President Jagdeo’s” will?
Given the background that is described in the first and second paragraphs of this letter, it would suggest the following questions are not only valid, but extremely relevant, and warrant the keenest attention of all patriotic Guyanese: 1) Does the control of Guyana’s airwaves suggest that “State” censorship of the electronic and social media could become a reality if the PPP were to win a majority in the next general elections?
It has been reported that the broadcast of a certain calypso that is critical of the government has been banned. 2) Is the PPP’s 2013 “gloss & glitter”, or “beads and trinkets for the natives” budget an election gimmick designed to lull Guyanese voters by way of deception into a feeling of benign benevolence by the government, and so improve its chances of strengthening the dictatorship?
All who love Guyana must awake from our lethargy, diligently scrutinize the 2013 budget, and pay keen attention to the debates in parliament. Among the numerous issues that need to be clarified: “Is the government giving its citizens “x” amount of dollars now only to take back “2x” later, and “4x” from our children, and even more from generations yet unborn, so that even the little that they have would be taken away from them?”
Put another way: “How heavily indebted to China would Guyana become if the 2013 budget is passed without changes?” “How many future generations of Guyanese will be faced with huge debt payments?” “What could happen if Guyana were to default? Could we be re-colonized by a country with a dubious human rights record?”
Those of us who remain unconcerned need to become aware of the dire consequences of perpetuating the status quo in Guyana. As the numbers of unemployed, unemployable (functionally illiterate), and miscreants increase not only will the available national tax base (revenue) to fund much needed social infrastructure, social services, and public amenities shrink, but each successive year an increasing portion of the nations’ revenue, and indeed an increasing portion of our own personal incomes will be consumed by the expanding non-productive sectors – the security services, law enforcement agencies, and prisons.
It should be noted that the 2013 allocation of approximately 8.5 billion dollars to the Ministry of Home Affairs represents an increase of nearly 7% of the 2012 allocation of approximately 7.7 billion. These agencies produce no products, nor create any wealth, but rather they consume, sometimes wastefully, the wealth created by the productive sectors.
Surely this is not prudent use of Guyana’s scarce resources. As a consequence the quality of our social services (education, health, recreational facilities, potable water supply and waste disposal) will deteriorate even further. If the present deterioration in our social environment continues, all our lives and all our property will be at risk. Social advantages and privileges of birth that we now enjoy will be no guarantee against the bitter harvest when chickens come home to roost. All will be consumed. None, not one shall be spared.
We must, therefore, in unity let it be assertively known that Guyanese are dissatisfied with policies, where the “odds” are continuously being stacked against ordinary citizens, the working poor, our children, and our generations yet unborn. Let it be known, both here and abroad, that our nation’s patrimony, our freedoms, and our rights are not for sale!
The glossed-up, more-of-the-same 2013 budget could well be the “would-be dictator’s” opiate, or “Trojan Horse”. We must not be complacent and be caught unawares. To be forewarned is to be forearmed.
Clarence O. Perry
