Zakaria, Zakaria
-Chant of the new opposition
‘The narcissistic orientation is one in which one experiences as real only that which exists within oneself, while the phenomena in the outside world have no reality in themselves, but are experienced only from the viewpoint of their being useful or dangerous to one. The opposite pole to narcissism is objectivity; it is the faculty to see people and things as they are, objectively, and to be able to separate this objective picture from a picture which is formed by one’s desires and fears.’

Erich Fromm – The Art of Loving
PULL QUOTE: ‘Every day, a misguided and shallow few, quite motivated to destroy whatever tenets of journalism are left in this country, issue a cheap designer gift to this Administration; the gift of ‘elected dictatorship’; and then shamelessly claim that notwithstanding its electoral successes, this Administration is gradually taking on the mantle of a dictatorship; unaware that their hero, Zakaria, favours a dictatorship in the developing world’

SOME MEDIA people just do not get it; they have become victims of the mesmerising chant of “Zakaria, Zakaria” to grandstand this new opposition. Consequences of this victimisation: Narcissism or sheer ignorance? And so, we may need a Hercules to rescue the muse of democracy and good governance from this ignorance and narcissism, if that is what exists and what the prevailing situation warrants. But I am certain that there are many Hercules among us!

Every day, a misguided and shallow few, quite motivated to destroy whatever tenets of journalism are left in this country, issue a cheap designer gift to this Administration; the gift of ‘elected dictatorship’; and then shamelessly claim that notwithstanding its electoral successes, this Administration is gradually taking on the mantle of a dictatorship; unaware that their hero, Zakaria, favours a dictatorship in the developing world. But is it a mindset flowing from narcissism or sheer ignorance?

And it is reprehensible that these people are able to shriek stuff amounting to political lawlessness in the media every day without hindrance, yet they cry for freedom and democracy; clearly, ignorance is in large supply, as they seem to not know that this kind of media shrieking would be a scarce activity amid a dictatorship.

Lest we forget, this is the same PPP/C government that swept the nation in electoral polls in 1992, 2001, and 2006, and restored fundamental freedoms for all, including some of these shadowy media note-takers.

These people, the chanters of “Zakaria, Zakaria,” now howl for ‘democracy’; unaware that Zakaria bemoans the evil role of democracy in the developing world; Zakaria said that “…it is difficult to think of a Third World democracy that has achieved sustained growth rates.” Note Zakaria’s love affair with Park, Suharto, and Pinochet! Well, there is universal support for the significant role of democracy and freedoms to sustain economic growth rates; dictatorships will not do!!

And I put out a challenge to these distortionists to show me where or how the Guyana Government exhibits the characteristics of a dictatorship. I see the following elements of good governance, inclusivity, and democracy in Guyana, and this listing is not exhaustive:

Amendments to the Constitution created the following new conditions:

• The President’s powers were reduced – Note the limits on the President’s powers through Articles 90, 180, and 182 of the Guyana Constitution.

• Parliamentary Standing Committees to review Government’s policy in social, economic, foreign, and natural resources sectors.

• Parliamentary Management Committees.

• Standing Committee on Constitutional Reform.

• Legislation approved establishment of these Commissions: Ethnic Relations; Procurement; Rights of the Child; Women and Gender; and the Indigenous People.

• Government has promoted political inclusiveness through the Joint Committees, constitutional amendments, and through institutional recognition of a responsible opposition.

• Constitutional Amendments project Guyana’s Constitution as one of the most people-oriented, in relation to inclusivity and opposition involvement in the Caribbean.

• Bi-partisan committees were established – Local Government Reform; Border & National Security; Distribution of Land & House lots; Resuscitation of the Bauxite Industry; Depressed Communities’ Needs; & Radio Monopoly & Non-partisan Boards.

• PNCR representatives are included on State Boards, Commissions, and Parliamentary Committees.

• New post of Head of the Public Service to be distinguished from the Head of the Presidential Secretariat.

• Democracy is more than casting ballots at elections. Karl (1990) refers to this as a “fallacy of electoralism.”

• Democracy has to do with ‘election competitiveness’ and ‘inclusiveness’.

• There are statutory and competing elections every five years, with multiparty involvement.

• Constitutional Amendments have expanded inclusivity in governance.

• There is an independent Guyana Elections Commission, a constitutional body.

Now, if we have these building blocks of democracy and good governance, and we do, where is this dictatorship? And again, this breed of columnists living off distortions in this country can only sustain their craft under these freedoms, products of democracy and good governance; enjoying the fruits of democracy, yet claiming to be living under an elected dictatorship; and even without fully understanding the essential flaws in Zakaria’s analysis, the source of their emerging journalistic blindness that encourages the distortions in their writings, and in their application of the concept of ‘elected dictatorship’.

Over the last two weeks, I was at pains to point out that these mainly newspaper writers gullibly acquiesce Zakaria’s flawed ‘elected dictatorship’ and ‘illiberal democracy’. Zakaria believes that (1) authoritarian governments are more effective than democracies at sustaining economic growth; and (2) economic growth and industrialisation are the nuts and bolts for the emergence of a democracy. And so, in the developing world, if you want economic gains, then you have to have more dictatorship and less democracy; and so, what good is this chant to the new opposition, except, perhaps, to create political mischief?

But if, as some columnists believe, we have a dictatorship here or some form of authoritarianism, then they should know that this is a ‘good thing’ in Zakaria’s mindset; for he argues that through dictatorship, we will achieve our best economic outcomes; and these outcomes will enable the dictatorship to reach a democratic state. Another way of saying all this in Zakaria’s language is thus:

dictatorship → sustained economic growth → democracy.

But some of the Guyana media people posit that there is no democracy here, and that we need to have it; Zakaria feels that in the developing world, it is fine not to have a democracy, but a good thing to have a dictatorship, to germinate sustainable economic outcomes; at which point we could gravitate toward democracy. It would appear that these media people do not grasp the essence of the “Zakaria, Zakaria” chant.

Clearly, these media jokers’ application of Zakaria’s theory of illiberal democracy is not in sync with the fundamental pillars of his argument, methodologically flawed as it is. In Zakaria’s work, the future of freedom in the developing world lies in the hands of authoritarianism. And these media people proudly extrapolate selectively from Zakaria’s writings, the hero of this new opposition. Is this what the Guyanese people want?

The Northern Passages
EARLY NEXT week, two German-owned container ships will arrive in Rotterdam from Vladivostok in the Russian Far East, having taken only one month to make the voyage. That’s much faster than usual — but then, they didn’t take the usual route down through the South China Sea, past Singapore, round the bottom of India, through the Suez Canal (pay toll here), across the Mediterranean and up the west coast of Europe. They just went around the top of Russia.

It’s the first-ever commercial transit of the Northeast Passage by non-Russian ships, and it shortens the sea trip between East Asia and Europe by almost a third. It’s the melting of the Arctic sea ice that has made it possible, although for the moment, it’s only possible for a couple of months at the end of the summer melt season, when the Arctic Ocean’s ice cover has shrunk dramatically. But it is a sign of things to come.

The voyage is more evidence that climate change is well underway, and will strike the Arctic region hard. But it also shows that all the fuss about the Northwest Passage is irrelevant.

It’s the Northwest Passage (another potential short-cut between Europe and East Asia that goes through the Canadian Arctic archipelago) that has got the attention in the past few years. Although ice-breakers have traversed it from time to time, no ordinary commercial ship has ever carried cargo through it. But when the Russians put on their little propaganda show at the North Pole two years ago, the Canadian government had kittens.

In 2007, Artur Chilingarov, a Russian scientist famous for his work in the polar regions and personal Arctic adviser to then-president Vladimir Putin, took a mini-sub to the North Pole and planted a Russian flag on the seabed. Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper immediately flew to Iqaluit in the high Arctic and responded with a rabble-rousing speech.

“Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty in the Arctic,” he said. “We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake: This government intends to use it.” He then announced a programme to build six to eight armed Arctic patrol vessels to assert Canadian control over the Northwest Passage, and a deep-water naval base on Baffin Island to support them.

“I don’t know why the Canadians reacted as they did,” Chilingarov told me a few months later in Moscow, and on the face of it, he had a case. After all, Russia has no claims over any land or water that might conceivably belong to Canada, and Canada makes no claim on the North Pole. But Chilingarov actually understood the game that Harper was playing quite well.

Canada’s dispute over sovereignty in the Northwest Passage is actually with the United States, not with Russia. The Russians have absolutely no interest in the Northwest Passage, since they have their own rival, the Northeast Passage. But the United States used to believe that the Northwest Passage could be very useful if it were ice-free, so Washington has long maintained that it is an international waterway which Canada has no right to control.

Canada disputes that position, pointing out that all six potential routes for a commercially viable Northwest Passage wind between islands that are close together and indisputably Canadian. But Ottawa has never asserted MILITARY control over the Northwest Passage until now, because to do so would risk an awkward confrontation with the United States. However, if you can pretend that you are building those warships and that naval base to hold the wicked Russians at bay, not to defy the Americans…

That is Harper’s game. And he now visits the high north every summer to re-assert Canada’s sovereignty claims. But in the end, it will make no difference, because the Northwest Passage will never become a major shipping route. The Northeast Passage is just too much easier.

The problem for Canada is that all the routes for a Northwest Passage involve shallow and/or narrow straits between various islands in the country’s Arctic archipelago, and the prevailing winds and currents in the Arctic Ocean tend to push whatever loose sea ice there is into those straits. It is unlikely that cargo ships that are not double-hulled and strengthened against ice will ever get insurance for the passage at an affordable price.

Whereas the Northeast Passage is mostly open water (once the ice retreats from the Russian coast), and there is already a major infrastructure of ports and nuclear-powered ice-breakers in the region. If the distances are roughly comparable, shippers will prefer the Northeast Passage every time – and the distances ARE comparable.

Just look at the Arctic Ocean on a globe, rather than in the familiar flat-earth Mercator projection. It is instantly obvious that the distance is the same, whether shipping between Europe and East Asia crosses the Arctic Ocean by running along the Russia’s Arctic coast (the Northeast Passage) or weaving between Canada’s Arctic islands (the Northwest Passage).

The same is true for cargo travelling between Europe and the west coast of North America. The Northwest Passage will never be commercially viable.
(Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist)