My scrutiny of Government: Insider critique and messenger of the voiceless

FROM almost its first day in office, this new government has had to contend with intense scrutiny of its every move. That scrutiny has come from three sources — the PPP, sections of the independent media, and some independent commentators and a couple of commentators who are known members and supporters of constituent parties in the coalition.

Many government supporters have argued that it is too early to criticize the government; that it should be given some time to find its feet —the proverbial honeymoon period. While I have great sympathy for that argument, I do believe that that attitude to government has, over the years, had grave consequences for our political process.
I am one of those government supporters who have been scrutinizing the actions of the government. I stress scrutiny, because that is what I do. I do not, as a rule, attack government or government officials. Because of my known membership of one of the governing parties and relatively close proximity to the leadership of the APNU, many rightly or wrongly consider me a government-insider. Consequently, some are perplexed and perhaps angry at my critique of the government.

I rather suspect that that is not confined to the rank and file; that sections of the leadership may be so inclined. I understand that response, because self-critique or insider-critique has been at variance with the dogmatic party discipline which has characterized our political culture. But I do not believe, nor have ever believed, that membership or support of something should tie one’s hand or muzzle one’s mouth. I get sad every time I hear a young person say with all seriousness that he or she can’t speak on anything political because he or she works for the government. Is that what our independence means? Perhaps the harsh treatment of independent thinkers and commentators has forced our youths and the wider society into a culture of unhealthy self-censorship.

Both Guyanese and Caribbean political history are full of instances of those who engage in insider-critique being maligned and shoved out into the cold. It seems as if dissent and critique, whether coming from outside or within, are inexorably seen as enemy fire. It is my fervent hope that this government does not fall into that trap. Usually, there is no recovery from that affliction, once it takes hold of a government.

The irony is that our very history of popular politics is grounded in resistance, both as critique and as mass action. Every governing party was a critic before it became government. The problem is that once our governments take office, they have tended to be intolerant of critique and dissent — a phenomenon that has badly tainted our political culture.

I belong to an independent tradition in Caribbean politics, which I have described elsewhere as “political contrariness”. Our popular version of recent political history contends that the nationalist movement split into two factions in 1955. What it ignores is that later ruptures in the PPP and the PNC created a third tendency — what I call the independent strand in our post-colonial architecture. I place Eusi Kwayana at the centre of the early evolution of this independent strand. Walter Rodney would expand it when he returned to Guyana in 1974.

The adherents of this independent strand accept the broad tenets of democratic politics, but approach political development within the context of its particular or native concrete reality, and engage politics as activism rather than as contestation for office and power. Consequently, they are not afraid to raise “hidden” or taboo political issues publicly; do not automatically toe the party partisan or ethnic line; reject messianic or charismatic relationships with followers; are not afraid to stand alone; disavow populism; and see political office not as a prize or entitlement, but as a vehicle for democratic transformation.

I therefore see no contradiction between my strong support, or even membership of the government, and my public scrutiny of its actions. I believe that no government, especially one-party government (including plural ones such as our current one), should be spared constructive criticism. Of course, governments tend to make the fatal mistake of seeing all criticisms as destructive. Governments do not have the opportunity to see or hear themselves from the outside. Often, what they think they know about what they do is based more on perception and less on reality.

Since losing office, the PPP has been very bitter, negative, and politically cantankerous. As a result, its scrutiny of the government has been less as critique and more as attack, often baseless attack. Government is less inclined to respond positively to such scrutiny. The problem is that even if the PPP’s criticism is constructive in principle, its mean-spiritedness delegitimizes the criticism. There is, therefore, a void as far as serious critique of the government is concerned. Here is where the independent media and commentators come in.

In this regard, some of the editorials and investigative pieces in the two independent daily newspapers stand out. The question is this: Are you criticizing the government to embarrass and weaken it, or is your criticism aimed at alerting the government to its shortcomings and urging it to do better?
A very critical aspect of government oversight is the voice of government supporters. Often, that voice is self-suppressed out of fear of angering the leaders or appearing to give the opposition ammunition to attack the government. Consequently, that voice becomes defenseless against the long arm of the government; it is left with no representation, because its representatives are in government or are sympathetic to the government.

Often, when that voice is suppressed, over time, it takes on a life of its own. Apathy and anger develop, and sections of that voice become ready recruits for a third party, or the opposition. That is what eventually happened to the PPP.

My scrutiny and critique of government, therefore, come from two places — my independent spirit, and an attempt to bring to the attention of the government the concerns of its constituency. Every single day I get messages of concern for the health and about the direction of the government. I have decided to be their messenger. Some have asked: Why not speak to the government people in private? I would do so if afforded the opportunity, but scrutiny in the public space brings with it authentication and verification to those concerned that their messages are delivered. Ultimately, my scrutiny of this government comes from a place of love and fraternity. I have no control over how it is received by government functionaries.

Let me end with this: This past week, my heart was gladdened when I learnt that the Ministry of the Presidency held a public day in Georgetown for the general public to speak to, and hear from, the Ministers. I had driven by the Square of the Revolution and seen the tents and the crowd, but had no idea that one of the prayers of the people was being answered. It is one of the messages that I have constantly delivered these past seven months.

(More of Dr. Hinds’ writings and commentaries can be found on his YouTube Channel Hinds’ Sight: Dr. David Hinds’ Guyana-Caribbean Politics and on his website www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com. Send comments to dhinds6106@aol.com)