IN a recent column(Statements of another mind KN 08-30-09), Freddy Kissoon wonders about why PPP supporters vote for the party of their choice. He looks to Sigmund Freud for an answer and comes up empty. Incidentally, Freud practically founded the field of psychoanalysis and would have been quite offended to be lumped, as Freddie does, with “philosophers …” Freud considered his work to be very scientific, not philosophical. Anyone who studied Psychology would know that.

I am not surprised by Freddy’s inability to explain voting behaviour in Guyana. He said there is no such thing as political science, a field that, among other things, studies and explains voting behaviour – a topic I am currently teaching. Incidentally, I did doctoral studies in political science and sociology, among other disciplines. Freddy once claimed that he was a “Doctor” but backed down to a “Masters” when challenged in the letters pages of the Stabroek News in the late eighties. He told us at one time he studied Guyanese history and another time he is a specialist in German history and now teaches politics. So we don’t really know what he studied and looking at his misrepresentations in KN’s columns, we are not sure he studied and learnt anything.

Anyway, if Freddy had studied in any of the social science fields, rational choice might have given him a clue in explaining “voting behaviour” in our dear old beautiful Guyana. Freddy, of course, would have had to study Guyana a bit to fit, using a variety of disciplines, in the variables of what choices presented themselves to the Guyanese voters. Sociology might have educated him about the importance of groups in macro behaviour. Anthropology might have educated him about the formation of those groups. Political science might have alerted him to the importance of “heuristics” in voting decisions. There is also a role for Psychology. And Freddy looks to old Sigmund, some say the father of the field of Psychology, who specialised in studying the individual mind. But at least Freddie could have looked at some theories in Social Psychology. AT CUNY, where I studied, a course in Psychology was mandatory. And in doctoral studies, a course in Political Psychology was required. Incidentally, Freud would have gone crazy had he studied Freddy.

On another note, my brother, Freddy, has been playing fast and loose with seemingly solid “academic” claims bootstrapping his specious arguments by misapplying, misquoting and misrepresenting the arguments of noted scholars – all towards a lame effort to bolster his misguided conclusions. Take his constant references to Fareed Zakaria to support his claims that an “elected dictatorship” exists in Guyana. Firstly, to say that Zakaria claims democracies can descend into dictatorship is banal. Any form of government can, and have, descended into dictatorship.

Zakaria’s point was that America (under Bush) was making a mistake in promoting democracy – defined by the holding of free and fair elections in the Middle East. Zakaria argued for the gradual liberalization of countries. Following his mentor Samuel Huntington, who is required reading for those like me who studied politics, Zakaria assumed that history had a linear path and the western European experience of installing liberal institutions before democracy ought to be followed in the rest of the world. This is why he dubbed some democracies “Illiberal democracy” – including that of the US, where he claims the liberal institutions had degenerated, one might note. The problem with Zakaria’s argument is how we guarantee that those who (undemocratically) say they will construct the liberal institutions will actually do so. Zakaria also feels that a certain high per capita income in the population should precede democracy and if we hold to that criterion, many countries will not be democracies.

Those of us who study history would not be comfortable with Zakaria’ idea of putting our faith on a benign dictator to build democracy. There is no way to ensure that we will end up with a “good dictator” such as Lee Kwan Yew (Singapore) rather than say an Augosto Pinochet (Chile) or a Forbes Burnham. I should note that in Guyana, President Jagdeo has been elected democratically and he and his party claim they are constructing liberal institutions in the reforms in parliamentary democracy.

I should also note that liberal democracies had autocratic rulers for hundreds of years before experiencing full democracy. Is this not what Freddy wishes for Guyana?

But what is all of this to Freddy? He will still drop some big names and concepts to support his prejudices and arguments because he believes Guyanese are gullible and that no one will bother to correct him on his misapplication of social theories.
VISHNU BISRAM