Justice Louis Brandeis, the architect of the U.S. First Amendment law, coined the statement that “It is not sufficient that men vote, it is essential that they vote right,” suggesting that people must ‘sus’ out the truth, which could provide a foundation for their position, prior to reaching a decision to vote.

Voters’ understanding of race-ethnic matters is critical, as the new opposition remains wedded to the race card; and without the race card, some politicians may become irrelevant in Guyana’s politics.

And distractions, especially not comprehensively evidence-based, prevent ‘sussing’ out such truths. WikiLeaks cables are one such distraction, notwithstanding that they make for good entertainment. WikiLeaks cables have arrived in Guyana, and have evolved into a new form of excitement for the ill-advised. Nonetheless, WikiLeaks, obtaining its domain name ‘WikiLeaks.org’ on October 4, 2006, generally provide minimal support structure for seeking out political truths as will become clearer below.

In this election season, the theatrical appearances and reappearances of WikiLeaks cables have become a distraction, a humbug. WikiLeaks cables merely provide an aura of factualism, particularly, when good chunks of its content really are important people’s partisan and quasi-evidentiary interpretations of events.

In addition, the verification process of leaked documents is not systemically clear, as the assessment of the documents is left to users and editors globally who are expected to make up their own minds about the validity of the leaked documents (The Original, 2007), and Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has the final word on document release. Furthermore, there are obvious concerns on the clear and present dangers they pose to departments and personnel, the sources from where these  documents emanate, particularly if these sources of WikiLeaks cables are not verifiable or credible. When devoid of such verification, there is no question then, that the WikiLeaks cables really are half-baked information or misinformation.

In this election season, the theatrical appearances and reappearances of WikiLeaks cables have become a distraction, a humbug. WikiLeaks cables merely provide an aura of factualism, particularly, when good chunks of its content really are important people’s partisan and quasi-evidentiary interpretations of events.

And such misinformation could become fodder for some parties which have no genuine party platforms. Indeed, this fodder already is making its way into party platforms not only vis-à-vis Wikileaks cables, as, indeed, there are other distractions and gimmicks in this silly season.

For these reasons, this election season is fast becoming the tale of ‘two extreme party platforms’ with an intermediary; the two extremes are ‘extreme political truths’, where parties promise voters the world, telling voters what they want to hear, and in so doing parties make everything seem simplistic and that everything promised will happen in a jiffy.

Of course, the intermediary party platforms are what voters should seek out. These are platforms grounded in the reality of truth, in the beliefs and interests of citizens, where their consequences work to the advantage of the collective and not merely individual interests. Hence, the proper thing to do is to not just vote, but to vote right.

No one should disagree that extracting evidence is critical to seeking out political truths. Political truths, and for that matter, all truths can only come from evidence-based data and information.
And this position gels with Justice Brandeis dictum that knowledge is vital for understanding, and that understanding should precede judgment. Indeed, very soon, Guyanese voters have to make judgments on voting. But voters must first gain some knowledge and understanding of party platforms, prior to deciding for whom they will exercise their franchise. Indeed, the voters’ choice determines the future of Guyana.

As former U.S. President Bill Clinton would say, elections are all about the future. The People’s Progressive Party/Civic’s (PPP/C) track record is unbeatable. And its agenda for the future really should be a continuity of the Jagdeo policies and programs, among which could include the following, among others: intensified initiatives to eliminate crime and drugs; national infrastructural development; higher education standards; a budget that enhances education, youth development, ‘grow more food’, housing, health care, access to higher education, the environment, job creation, social security, and entrepreneurship; and greater investment in poor rural and urban neighborhoods. 

And as the elections reach to the future, the PPP/C is on solid ground. Let me whet your appetite with a small assortment of sustainable achievements. Guyana achieved a 6 % real economic growth rate for the first half of 2011;  circa 1992, only about a third of students of high school age had exposure to general secondary education. Today, that figure is about 70%, and CXC pass rates are well in excess of 80%; more than 100,000 house lots allocated, a spectacular success in housing, when you consider there was no Ministry of Housing in the People’s National Congress (PNC) ruling era; infant mortality rate = 14 per 1,000 live births; under-five mortality rate = 17 per 1,000 children; child immunization (MMR) rate = 95%. Please contact me for a copy of ‘Guyana Democracy & Economic Growth’, which contains considerable data and information.

As voters review the PPP/C government’s economic performance, they should also understand the situation on race and ethnic relations. For some time now, I concluded the following on race and ethnic relations, albeit the necessity to engage in additional studies:
* Guyana seemingly has no dominant ethnic group.
* Guyana has ethnic alliances.
* Guyana’s major ethnic groups ostensibly have comparable Socioeconomic Status (SES), indicators being education, occupation, and income.
* Guyana’s cultural mosaic inclines toward pluralism.
* Guyana’s fringe politicians and parts of the private media construct and reconstruct ethnic conflict, assisting them to manipulate the race card.
* Guyana has class-race-ethnicity simultaneously lived-in where each person belongs to a class, a race, and an ethnic group.
* Guyana has class divisions within each ethnic group as well as in the society at large – intra and inter-ethnic class structure.

Voters’ understanding of race-ethnic matters is critical, as the new opposition remains wedded to the race card; and without the race card, some politicians may become irrelevant in Guyana’s politics.

For all these reasons, if democracy is to be more than a type of government, and more a way of life, a culture (Laski), then citizens have to develop knowledge, understanding, and informed judgment to vote right.