REDEFINING Guyana’s politics has become the new thread of some parts of the traditional and new media. Guyana, once a colonial country, secured legal freedom in 1966, graduated to taking on the mantle of a dictatorship in 1968, and then we saw the demise of the dictatorship and the onset of a fragile democracy in 1992; and now, with the media conferring on this country the status of ‘elected dictatorship’, ‘fascism’, among others. Indeed, the rapidity of media presentation of these new labels seems congruent with the vicissitudes of the election season.
Look, Guyana is not faultless; certainly, it is not the U.S., but yet unlikely comparisons with that advanced country abound; conveniently to promote political wannabes’ electoral candidacies in their quest for self-power via the usual and predictable demonstration of the evils in this land; comparisons, nonetheless, that should not happen as we generally make comparisons with things that are alike; and certainly, Guyana and the U.S. are largely unalike. Nevertheless, these comparisons persist with great vigor, in order to sustain this biased line of thinking; and, of course, occasionally, the comparisons evaporate when they no longer support the flimsy arguments.

‘…Guyana is not faultless; certainly, it is not the U.S., but yet unlikely comparisons with that advanced country abound; conveniently to promote political wannabes’ electoral candidacies in their quest for self-power via the usual and predictable demonstration of the evils in this land…’

Noted research methods author, Babbie argues that when a person searches for patterns among what we see around us, we frequently take for granted that a few unrepresentative cases really are evidence of some general pattern; in doing this, we overgeneralize. Babbie believes that a danger of overgeneralization is that it could result in selective observation. How so? Well, if you believe a pattern exists, then you would persist in searching for those cases that match this pattern, and ignore those that do not.
Don Lindsay refers to this as cherry picking, where we only present those cases to suit our own biases, supporting our own pre-existing beliefs. This is exactly what some in the Guyana political crowd/new opposition do as they conjure up new labels as ‘elected dictatorship’ ‘fascism’, ‘corrupt state’, ‘state supporting torture’, etc.
Let me just say that while cherry picking is inappropriate to draw general conclusions, we must not ignore those individual cases of torture, human rights abuses, corruption, etc., alleged or otherwise. And look, there is corruption in some quarters in this country, something that is characteristic of many public bureaucracies.  Nonetheless, this is something that requires elimination; but please, let us not present it as if it is cancerous across the body politic. For if this were the case plus applying some ingredients of dictatorship,  then their ubiquitous influences would reach out and touch both the traditional and new media in horrendous ways that would transform it into some kind of ugly subservient creature. Clearly, this is not the case, as the private media houses continue to do their own thing in whatever whichway; could these media operatives do their own thing within the parameters of a fascist/elected dictatorship? I guess not.
And these people who frequently dish out the label of ‘fascism’, for instance, should explain to the populace not only what it is, and not with one or two cases which in this instance would be cherry picking, but to say something about the old and new forms of fascist consciousness and action; in fact, Koves in Social Scientist (2004) argues that fascism wore different faces in the 20s and 30s and when its chief challenger were the Comintern and the left democracy; what is its applicability vis-à-vis different faces to Guyana? And at this early stage in this century, Koves raises concerns about global fascism’s control of the peripheries and the developing world; how does alleged Guyana’s fascism match the might of global fascism in its attempt to control small and vulnerable nations?
Adorno and Horkheimer’s ‘The Dialectic of Enlightenment’ shows how the dichotomy of instrumental and theoretical rationality continues to multiply in forms where instrumental rationality controls knowledge. Is there a control over knowledge in Guyana? A cursory look at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education will excoriate these people’s label of fascism in this country; indeed, we can examine, too, other areas of knowledge formation. And there are other aspects of a theoretical fascist landscape that you should review against the flimsy and premature label of fascism that constantly makes their way into the printed pages without any substantial evidence. Indeed, as a matter of public interest, we should review the evidentiary status of other labels that consistently find their way into media pages.
For these reasons, we must demand from anyone making public conclusions about politics, public interest, education, economics, social welfare, etc., appropriate evidence to support their arguments, the labels they dish out, and their conclusions that automatically become God’s word.
Feedback: pmperspectives@aol.com; themisirpost.wordpress.com