For a wile, I thought that it was written by TK. Some useful points, but debatable.

And here you call me a racist, and yet say nothing about where the racism exists.

Every post of yours shows how right I am.

And here you atre screaming about 1990-92. 

Now who do you think set the stage for this with its struggles against Burnham beginning in the late 70s. Yes when Cheddi was praising Burnham for every move that Burnham made to nationalize the economy, thereby strengthening the hold of his dictatorship in the lives of ordinary Guyanese.

If you deny the role of the WPA then you are a truly ignorant person.

I guess they saw themselves as benevolent dictators.  Thieves do not qualify to be benevolent dictators by the very definition of the term.

How many votes did the WPA pull when they contested the elections by themselves?  The WPA died with Walter Rodney.

Given that Caribbean people are highly individualistic then it will be the thieves who will emerge as the "benevolent" dictators, which is why such an idea is truly nonsensical.

What Guyana needs is for the population at large, through civic organizations, to begin to communicate to the government (both the governing party and the opposition) about what they expect from them. 

Guyana has weak civic society, which are a bunch of soup lickers, pandering to the governing party.  Guyana has no where to go until it overcomes this, rather than looking to government for all solutions, and enslaving themselves to the petty dictators who emerge. 

It was only the truly heroic who confronted Burnham and Jagdeo.  The business, labor, and religious leaders all ran for soup.

His people are the ones over whom he has dominion. It is the people over whom he is to be a dictator. The point of introducing god into the equation is to take the point to its extreme to highlight its flaws. 

One is assuming that to be accepting of a dictator one has to be forced at some point to submit. Given one does not submit except to truths ( one live or die by truths), a dictator, given he will be often wrong ( being imperfect) will have to resort to cruelty against those who reject his wrongs. The minute he or she takes to cruelty benevolence is through the window.

A little bit of cruelty leads to a little bit more  resistance and more cruelty is demanded and more resistance ensues. In time the object of the benefit of the dictator is exceeded by his/her  cruelty. Note one cannot remove him/her except by force because he/she is a dictator. The action reaction process will mean kind dictators soon become fledged cruel dictators at some point. 

Are you trying to tell me that the PPP assembled a multi ethnic alliance against the PNC dictatorship?  Given how Africans and mixed Guyanese have ALWAYS seen the PPP, please don't tell me that you indeed are being so dishonest.

It was the Rodney led WPA which gave Guyanese the notion that they could confront Burnham.  The weak kneed PPP certainly didn't and in fact many fled the PPP looking for PNC soup, as did happen to the PNC under Corbin.

It was the WPA which began to assemble many of the forces which ultimately allowed the mobilization of multi ethnic alliances against Burnham.

Are you trying to tell me that the PPP was able to forge a multi ethnic alliance against the PNC?  They summarily dumped all the non Indians who struggled against the PNC dictatorship, and ironically most are now aligned with a PNC dominated government.

It is the very behavior of the PPP which is what has so disappointed David Hinds with them, or with the hope that there could ever be an effective multi ethnic alliance in Guyana.

Hey Caribny, you are still trying to categorize me. Only lazy intellectuals and the uneducated depend on labels.

All governments since Guyana became British have had racist policies. Prior to that, the Dutch did also.Let us not debate that.  The main thing to figure out is how to move forward. Governments cannot impose a change in culture or boiases.  However, they can facilitate a change in culture, biases, etc through facilitating meaningful dialogue and interaction among groups in Guyana.  They have to deal with the great disparity of wealth in Guyana because currently with wealth comes power.  We have to restructure the education system so that there is intercultural education and emotional intelligence. The nation needs to understand that one will increase inequality if one treats everyone equally. We need to set up a council of elders respected by all groups in Guyana to ensure that policies,, procedures, principles, practices of government do no not add to racism. I can go on for a long time on this topic but one of the main handicaps is how we view things. Instead of wanting to move away from what colours our views in this are, we allow it to enslave us. We pass this on to our kids and thus enslave them also.  Jimmy Cliff sang "Poor slave, they take the shackles from his body and put it on his mind." (if I remember correctly) We need to unshackle our minds so we can move forward. We allow ourselves to buy into the hegemonic projects of groups whose sole in accumulate and use whatever they can to divide us. 

And this is exactly what happened with Burnham and Jagdeo.  Neither started out as the ogres that they ended up being, and might have even, in the beginning, had sincere goals of uplifting Guyanese.

What confuses the rest of the Anglophone Caribbean about Guyana, is why Guyanese allow dictators to emerge.  Panday and Manning all had the potential to be Jagdeo and Burnham, but T&T will NEVER allow it to reach that point.  Even though Jamaica is known for its political violence the ability of a PM to emerge as a dictator is nil.

But Guyana.......it wouldn't surprise me if Guyanese allowed Granger to gradually become dictatorial, just as did just about every Guyanese head of state, aside from Hoyte and Cheddi.  Hoyte and Cheddi didn't last too long, and that might be the reason why they didn't emerge as dictators.

You categorized yourself by calling me a racist, while letting the Indo KKK pour their filth.

You do not even PRETEND to be objective.  Given this, how can you be trusted to be fair?

You know who can be trusted to be part of a dialogue leading to a resolution of institutional racism in Guyana?  People like Chris Ram, who even though he is an Indo Guyanese, allowed open discussion of ethnic relations, including the PPP persecution of Afro Guyanese, on a TV show which he used to host. 

And note that when people like Greenidge, Hinds, and Hughes spoke of PPP inspired institutional racism, he didn't shut them down by callong them racist.  And for all of that he has been lambasted as a race traitor, and other vile comments, and I don't think too many Indians defended him.

HE can talk on this subject as he has proven that he has a SINCERE goal of eradicating institutional racism. He was outspoken at real risk to himself, not only professionally, but maybe even his life.

 All those like you who bleat "black man baad, Indian good," do NOT, unless you address the issue of Indian racism, and cease condoning those who pour racist filth about blacks.

I think you are missing the whole ocean not just the boat.  We are talking about a benevolent dictator NOT a dictator.  Here is how Wikipedia defines it:

1. A benevolent dictatorship is a theoretical form of government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state but is seen to do so for the benefit of the population as a whole.

If he does not act in true terms for the benefit of the population he is no longer benevolent.  We had this discussion before back in the days.

Why did you selectively cut my response?  It was just 2 sentences!  HYSFH.

Stormborn is being realistic.  You are chatting nonsense.  Given the history of the Caribbean, we aren't a people who accept a paternalistic system of governance as those in Singapore did. 

When the people reject what the "benevolent" dictator tries to do, they then emerge as true dictators.  Burnham in 1966 and Jagdeo in 1991 weren't the men who they eventually evolved into.

Only needed the relevant part.  Yes when you are telling me that the PPP led a multi ethnic resistance against the PPP, but yet remained not trusted by the African and mixed populations in 1992. 

Had the WPA not done what it did in the early 80s, a multi ethnic alliance would never have emerged.

Its really sad that you refuse to understand that fact.

Burnham and Jagdeo are corrupt thieves who from the beginning were concerned only about POWER.  A benevolent dictator is a person he is not CREATED by society.  Not everyone wins the lottery but some do.  If you do not get it...all I am saying is that there could be an individual who would risk his political future for the benefit of his people.  Small minds cannot comprehend this.

So some guy emerges and crowns himself king, and then sees fit that all must obey his every command.

Then you must hope that he remains benevolent, even as increasingly concentrated power in his hands, offers him the temptation, not to be.

Good plan VVP, but I don't see that happening in Guyana.  Guyanese are "own way", and a dictator will be cruel, just as Burnham and Jagdeo became.

And to think that Lew Kuan Yew was some all sacrificing man, who wasn't motivated by maintaining a grip on power is naïve.  Nkrumah, another benevolent dictator ended up badly.  Fidel Castro.  And the list goes on.

Mandela did NOT make himself a benevolent dictator, which is why even his former enemies mourned his death.

FDR could be considered a benevolent dictator.  Here is an excerpt from an online article found at: 

http://www.discoverthenetworks...Category.asp?id=1228

The Progressive era in American politics formally lasted from the 1890s until the 1920s. But its legacy continued thereafter, permeating the philosophy and the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), who was first elected President in 1932, while the U.S. was mired in an economic depression. FDR campaigned, successfully, on a pledge to re-create the war socialism of the Wilson administration, a goal that was wildly popular with the liberal establishment of Roosevelt's day.

Once FDR had been elected, progressive-minded newspaper editorial boards, politicians, and pundits exhorted him to become a “dictator.” The revered reporter and political commentator Walter Lippmann, for instance, told Roosevelt in a private meeting: “The [economic] situation is critical, Franklin. You may have no alternative but to assume dictatorial powers.” Similarly, Eleanor Roosevelt mused that America might need the leadership of a “benevolent dictator.”

In FDR's day, the term “dictator” did not carry the negative connotations with which it is currently freighted; rather, it signified the idea that a political "general" or "commander" was needed to take charge of the battle against the economic depression in a manner similar to how Woodrow Wilson and the progressives had fought World War I.

FDR chose to attack the depression with his so-called New Deal, a series of economic programs passed during his first term in office. These programs greatly expanded the size, scope, and power of the federal government, giving the President and his Brain Trust near-dictatorial status. “I want to assure you,” Roosevelt's aide Harry Hopkins told an audience of New Deal activists in New York, “that we are not afraid of exploring anything within the law, and we have a lawyer who will declare anything you want to do legal.”

“The New Deal,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “was conceived at the climax of a worldwide fascist moment, a moment when socialists in many countries were increasingly becoming nationalists and nationalists could embrace nothing other than socialism.”

Many of Roosevelt's ideas and policies were entirely indistinguishable from the fascism of Mussolini. In fact, writes Goldberg, there were “many common features among New Deal liberalism, Italian Fascism, and German National Socialism, all of which shared many of the same historical and intellectual forebears.” Like American progressives, many Italian Fascist and German Nazi intellectuals championed a “middle” or “Third Way” between capitalism and socialism. Goldberg explains:

“The 'middle way' sounds moderate and un-radical. Its appeal is that it sounds unideological and freethinking. But philosophically the Third Way is not mere difference splitting; it is utopian and authoritarian. Its utopian aspect becomes manifest in its antagonism to the idea that politics is about trade-offs. The Third Wayer says that there are no false choices—'I refuse to accept that X should come at the expense of Y.' The Third Way holds that we can have capitalism and socialism, individual liberty and absolute unity.”

The German and American New Deals -- i.e., fascism and progressivism -- also shared the bedrock belief that the state should be permitted to do whatever it wished, so long as it was for “good reasons.” Chief among those "good reasons" was the idea that government's purpose was to protect the interests of "the forgotten man," on whose behalf both FDR and Hitler were proficient at projecting deep concern.

Conversely, FDR, Hitler, and Mussolini alike made many populist appeals designed to spark resentment against so-caled “fat cats,” “international bankers,” and “economic royalists.” Such appeals were, and remain, the tools of the trade for demagogues. (As recently as December 2009, for instance, President Barack Obama said: “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street"

FDR did NOT have sole power to do as he wished.  So does NOT reach a definition of being a dictator.

He was an effective leader, who clearly articulated his goals, and was successful in mobilizing the support to achieve them.  Something that many of us wish that Obama was able to do.  LBJ was another example.

"FDR chose to attack the depression with his so-called New Deal, a series of economic programs passed during his first term in office. These programs greatly expanded the size, scope, and power of the federal government, giving the President and his Brain Trust near-dictatorial status." 

And what about this makes him a dictator?  Did he not have to work with Congress to achieve those goals? 

FDR had his "chats" on the radio to educate the public about his goals.  His strong popularity with the electorate forced Congress to work with him.

Some might argue that, to the contrary, FDR was very much the democrat.

YOU DA MAN, YESSSS

WTFisHYSFH?

We are talking about real practices by real people not theoretical assumptions about what a dictator would be to meet the criteria for benevolence.

Anyone with absolute authority over the person of any other will inevitably misuse him. If one is a christian, muslim, jew or gentile the prevailing assumptions about authority of a leader is that if he has absolute power he will be corrupted.

I often quote Locke here on the authority of a leader. In his first  treatise on government he stated"

“But we know God hath not left one man so to the mercy of another, that he may starve him if he please: God the Lord and Father of all, has given no one of his children such a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the surplusage of his goods; so that it cannot justly be denied him, when his pressing wants call for it.

 

Remittances have nothing to do with GDP or GNP. Remittances are not produced internally; they are external financial assistance to supplement the incomes of individuals and households. I'm not an economist, only a communist.

Guyana is not a nation, it's a piece of real estate occupied by two main antagonists.  It should be divided up and the two groups go their separate ways.  The other races can chose under which administration they wish to live.

It does, it contributes to local commerce and part of the nations good and services exchanged.  That's part of the definition of GNP.

That is Ravi devs proposition. Unfortunately, majority does not mean supreme authority to dictate. Neither major group is local to the region. Both are transplants. They have no natural patrimony of be claiming historical birthright. Their obligation is to solve their wrong headed views and learn to live in a plural society.

Instead of asking others to move at the behest of any of these two groups they can take the option to leave. Given that is impractical then it is impractical to ask others to be subject to ill effects of the quarrels of these two groups.

Maybe, but you will have little to say except under which group you wish to live.  I hope you chose the PNC faction, but somehow, I would not hold my breath, you will chose the USA faction.  You is nuff fatt talk.

I can live anywhere I chose and that is my point. I am not constrained by any kind of argument to accept the dumb proposal you presented. It is never ever going to be tenable. Amerindians, for example, own more lands than all other races combined and these are distributed across all regions. State lands is also usfruct to any amerind as long as the state is not using it exclusively so go shove that up your craw with telling us where to go because you say so.

It starts with "Haul yuh.... 

Looks like you been to church recently. Not all men chase the dollar, property and land.  There are some that give of themselves for the benefit of others.  Ghandi and Mandela come to mind.

You sound like Brother Eusi and Peter D'Aguiar 

I hear Jagdeo give himself nuff stuff for the benefit of 'imself.

I didn't say give to themselves 

Good for you, but the average Guyanese cannot.  They are trapped on a piece of real estate and cannot get along.  So, divide and move on.  You do as you please.

I will be included with them soon. 

You, Prashad and Baseman...looks like we have a whole country.  President, PM and VP  

Hi Siggy, I gave the bench info to my fearless leader at work , it's in her hands now.

Hold on, leh me go back an read, see if I supposed to cuss you for something

Nahhhh, everything Irie.

I am an atheist and accept only the classical deist attributes of a divinity and that is for purpose of discussion. I could have quoted Madison in federalist 51 where he makes an even more succinct case, (of course using religious metaphors as well)  as to why we need government and what kind of government. He indirectly rules out benevolence in dictators.

the average guyanese do not make your argument.