By Dr. Prem Misir
THE President’s proclamation of prorogation would be a useful case study on the traditional Opposition (elected Opposition representatives of the National Assembly) and the new Opposition’s (mass media, inclusive of the social media and the partisan civil society) modus operandi on Guyana ‘s development. The media onslaught that followed the proclamation was no different from the many Government of Guyana capital projects that are now languishing in some corner of nothingness, thanks to the traditional and new Opposition groups.
In this sordid political context, many people present their political positions where they use democracy as a password to justify those positions. Invariably, these positions are opinions and not facts, but are presented as facts. At the present time, many critics are still having a field day with their anti-prorogation arguments, presenting their opinions, not facts; and then in an attempt to justify this position, they would say that prorogation has silenced the voice of democracy. The Constitution of Guyana states clearly in Article 70 (1) thus “The President may at any time by proclamation prorogue Parliament.” Prorogation is a done deal! And the President is in compliance with the Constitution.
The traditional Opposition and the new Opposition, through utilising democracy to support their opinions, really are a threat to democracy because they see their opinions as factual beyond any reasonable doubt; where only their position is correct; and in the process shutting out and dismissing other commentaries not supportive of theirs, claiming them to be erroneous.
In fact, these two Opposition groups present their anti-prorogation stance as a cast-iron certainty, that is, they see their position as the only one that is certainly real and truthful, as a safe bet, and as the only correct position, where no one should harbour doubts about their remarks on prorogation.
But if you accept these Opposition groups’ points of view, then the President’s position is invalid, notwithstanding that the President’s decision to prorogue is in sync with the Constitution. And subsequent to the proclamation of prorogation, the President issued a call to the traditional Opposition to discuss high matters of State, but to no avail; in effect, the President’s call, even though he is accused of making that call too late, demonstrated that his position is one which encourages a plurality of thinking, contrary to that of both Opposition groups. However, the view that only the Opposition groups’ disposition is valid is a threat to democracy and an anti-democratic position.
Let me clarify. This discussion so far on the anti-prorogation camp is an attempt to apply a theory of sceptical democracy which sees liberal democracy as having a space between two undemocratic forces – unreasonable certainty and denial of the reality of truth – and facing a double threat from them; liberal democracy does not claim certainty of knowledge and does not deny the existence of truth; and the trait that shows the differences between these undemocratic forces and liberal democracy is scepticism (Bufacchi, 2001, pp.24-25). Scepticism is defined thus: ‘No conception of the good can justifiably be held with a degree of certainty that warrants its imposition on those who reject it’ (Barry, 1995, p.169). Liberal democracy makes no claim to absolute knowledge; there are always doubts about knowledge in a liberal democracy; and liberal democracy does not impose its views on the people.
The media onslaught against the Government is a case in point to demonstrate both Opposition groups’ determination to present absolute knowledge and by implication imposing it on the people; as by their definition, knowledge is absolute, so people have no choice, but to buy into this so-called absolute knowledge. The anti-prorogation camp (used interchangeably with Opposition groups) professes unreasonable certainty, meaning that they present their commentaries to be true knowledge beyond doubt, that is, their knowledge is absolute.
But no knowledge is absolute. Let me explain. In reviewing philosophical worldviews for research design purposes, there is a distinct movement away from positivism to postpositivism. Positivism tends to suggest that there is absolute truth of knowledge (Phillips and Burbules, 2000) which postpositivism has challenged, acknowledging that people cannot be certain about their claims to knowledge; in this sense, knowledge is imperfect and fallible (Phillips and Burbules, 2000). And that is precisely the problem with the anti-prorogation camp; this camp believes that its position is akin to some form of absolute knowledge.
Once you believe that your point of view is a claim to absolute knowledge, then there can be no plurality of views, since yours is by definition absolute. And that is what makes the anti-prorogation arguments of the traditional and new Opposition groups’ undemocratic.

References
BARRY, B. M. 1995. Justice as impartiality.
BUFACCHI, V. 2001. Sceptical Democracy. Politics, 21, 23-30.
PHILLIPS, D. C. & BURBULES, N. C. 2000. Postpositivism and educational research, Rowman & Littlefield.