The PPP/C is the Most Centrist Party
Beware of political 'entrepreneurs', 'mobilizers' and 'outbidders'
Vote for the PPP/C

Gary Girdhari

Very few people are able to analyze human behavior and arrive at objective explanations for actions in different circumstances. People may assume certain postures as individuals acting alone, and then quite different postures when they act within their in-group.

Solidarity is an obvious reason in the latter case. A presumed sense of security is a contributing factor. Then there is fear: to deviate from the majority of that group can result in ostracism and even physical harm. Such allegiance can cut across gender and sexuality, race/ethnicity, religion, etc., as observed in many Trade Unions and even in the recent US Elections 2000. Contrariwise, there can be extreme polarization in behavior and action, as observed in some situations where cleavages based on ethnicity and religion are deep, bitter and rancorous. This can be seen in many plural societies; Northern Ireland and pre-partition India (religion) and Guyana (ethnicity) are two examples. "Leaders" in the small group or the larger group usually aid and abet the process of fealty to the group (church, fraternity, organization or political party).

Some of the so-called leaders do not adopt subtle methods, but may be brutally physical and violent (as was witnessed in Guyana by 'Rabbi Washington and his cohorts). Others operate in an 'intellectual' fashion. They write in the press and speak to groups on the radio, TV and at meetings. They are propagandists. And they have many underlings who, like 'runners', work at the small group level, the so-called grassroots approach. The political/social scientist technical terms to describe these individuals are political 'entrepreneurs', 'mobilizers', and 'outbidders'. They more often than not speak in negative terms, always quick to criticize and engage in finger-pointing. And they are smooth, glib and articulate, and charismatic. To achieve their goal they instill fear and distrust in the individuals of the group. Group insecurity (religion or ethnicity) is paramount in their jargon. Such insecurity is discussed in terms of potential liquidation of the group or prevention of potential 'genocide' or 'holocaust'. They work incessantly to indoctrinate their members and followers to be steadfast in their new belief and never to deviate for fear of their eradication by the 'enemy'. Those who do not follow their rules are severely punished, so that others may learn the lesson.

Such are the thought processes, behavior and methodology of the political 'entrepreneurs', 'mobilizers', and 'outbidders'. They are like cults. They are otherwise described as 'extremists' and 'fundamentalists'. What makes these people tick? Many of them believe that it their sacred duty, to follow their god given path, even engaging in violence, killings and war to further their goals. For this, they are promised (and guaranteed) an Elysian euphoric sanctification. Some of them believe that their method is the only true way to correct an injustice and thus obtain righteous revenge. They regale themselves with stories, tales and myths about their ancestry, their clan, their culture, and the nobility of their cause, the exemplary qualities and achievements of their people, their group and their leaders, and are constantly reminded of the lesser quality and moral depravity of others. Others embrace a Machiavellian lust for power – for power sake – to be recognized and 'worshipped' like a god, and to bathe in all the trappings therein. Their mental states degenerate progressively until they become 'mad', megalomaniacs who resort to repressive methods to sustain their position in and for power. They eventually become brutish dictators.

Nevertheless, people follow them, even die for them and their cause. (David Koresh and Jim Jones are two examples; and there are many others in the political arena.)

Also, in less extreme situations, people still follow the leader. For practical purposes, take the case of Guyana. Despite all the wrongs of the PNC in almost three decades (political, rigging of elections, economic ruination, human rights violations, etc.), that Party obtained votes paralleling the percentage of the Afro-Guyanese in the population, in the 1992 elections. Even after the extraordinary progress in all spheres of life after 1992 under the PPP/C, the same pattern of voting was observed in the 1997 elections. (Note: there was a tiny ethnic crossover votes.) And now, with elections due in March 2001, this pattern is most likely to be repeated, since no evidence to the contrary says otherwise, or is obvious. Did we not observe a similar pattern in the US elections 2000? For although the Democrat Clinton/Gore administration reigned for eight years with the greatest prosperity in living memory, the people voted (or nearly half of them) for the Republican Bush.

Are almost half the US and Guyana voters that daft not to recognize something good? Indeed, they are not stupid. But they are swayed by rhetoric, misinformation, destabilizing tactics, and well choreographed showmanship. In some ways such leaders are romantics, but they are also Machiavellian. They are full of guile, preferring not to deal with substance, but to appeal to emotionalism, recognizing the knee-jerk response when they activate the emotive signals, be it the appropriate race buttons or a supplication for religious solidarity, for they are quite aware of the methodology of Goebbels.

Every Guyanese who is true to his heart will attest to the reality of the PNC regime up till 1992, that is, severe ruin of Guyana under its watch. Enough is known about this, though there are a few who live in denial. However, it is necessary to be reminded of the past so that we may compare the present, and not repeat the mistakes of the past. When misconduct of such extreme nature occurs (economic bankruptcy, moral degeneration, political corruption such as election rigging and fraud, lack of freedom and democracy, and build-up of a dictatorship) the nation stagnates. The national psyche becomes stultified. Uncertainty and fear loom like a heavy saturated cloud. Like a batsman on a sticky wicket, there is too much inertia for optimum momentum.

For many, the memory (of the PNC era) is still fresh, and can be overpowering. Therefore, some sort of closure is obligatory. In some societies, there is mandatory punishment for such societal crimes. In at least one society (South Africa) there is an attempt at reconciliation. Thus in Guyana, there is also a need for several Truth Commissions – to answer questions of theft and corruption, election rigging, human rights violation, and political violence and murders, etc. – to catharsize the nation, and hopefully derive closure on many sore and haunting issues.

In this regard the PPP/C may be criticized for not taking the bull by the horns and follow the South African model of Truth and Reconciliation. The PPP/C may be criticized for other errors of omission. Many have faulted them for not trying to balance the disciplined forces, and for not taking appropriate measures to devolve government agencies and bureaucracies to other regions. It is in the PPP/C's interest to do so, because they have historically been weakened by the current centralization of the government agencies and bureaucracies. Arguably, other criticisms may be based on management styles.

However, the PPP/C remains the most politically correct and centrist party in Guyana, with the potential to govern effectually because of its core belief in putting people first. As history has shown they have demonstrated their willingness and capacity to do so.

But the PPP/C does not appear to possess the political prowess, the PR machinery to market itself for maximum exposure. They seem shy to tell the people what achievements have been derived, even in the midst of threats from the PNC leader Desmond Hoyte. The PPP/C leaders entertain the noble notion that if they do a whole lot of good in the political and economic fronts, then that alone is good enough to win over the people in the opposing platform. Their strategists do not yet realize the ever vigilant presence of the mobilizers and outbidders, and the power of the propaganda machinery. Hence the need for a vibrant and efficient public relations/press secretary.

As is known the PNC has bullied the PPP/C government to give up two years of its political life in office, ala the Herdmanston Accord. Despite this and the destabilizing tactics of the PNC, and later ROAR and some members of the WPA, the stark reality is there on the record. These must be viewed in the context of the past three years of disquiet and in comparison with the record of the PNC regime.

Here are some achievements under the PPP/C:

In my view, this is probably the most profound blessing under the PPP/C governance. There is true freedom, not only on the books. The Guyanese people must cherish this. It is the most valuable intangible. Throughout history, people have died (are dying) in the search and struggle for freedom and democracy. The Guyanese diaspora (which approximates the population of Guyana) was due primarily to the denial of this. Thus, the Guyanese people must never talk about these glibly. Freedom and democracy must be guarded vigilantly. Only in a true democracy can genuine development take place. Only in a true democracy can people breathe freely....

The PPP/C has not solved all of Guyana's problems. The greatest democracies in the world have not solved their problems. Guyana under the PPP/C needs more time. In the circumstances outlined above, it is clear that Guyana is on the right path. There are naysayers who are out there only to be critical (which is their right); but assessing the achievements under the PPP/C objectively and dispassionately, one can only conclude that the PPP/C is the best party and deserves to return to office in the March 2001 elections.