Words such as dictators, despots, totalitarians, fascists, autocrats, authoritarians and tyrants are used interchangeably to analyze or describe the acute abuse of power. Those descriptions, at the very basic level, invariably point to a circumstance where a leader or leaders usurp power in a dominant way while ignoring the views and wishes of others.

In addition, all of the abovementioned ignoble titles come along with some basic repulsive features; jailing and the execution of opponents, stifling free speech, stacking courts with political lackeys, emasculating Parliament, wanton propaganda with the complete disappearance of independent press and above all, a thin-skinned and petulant figurehead who despises critique or dissent.

I find myself consistently guided on this topic by two of my favorite books; Hannah Arendt’s ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism’ and Simon Montefiore’s ‘The Court of the Red Tsar’. Anyone who has taken a cursory glance at the aforementioned works would be understandably alarmed and aghast by the description of completely democratic regimes that are the opposite of the concept of a dictatorship, for political purposes.

THE DANGERS
The word ‘dictator’ originates from the Latin term ‘dictare’, a judge in the Roman Republic temporarily invested with absolute power to execute a specific leadership purpose with gusto and vigor. Ever since its arrival in our modern lexicon, we have seen the worst manifestation of this concept in the most ignominious way. From Ivan ‘The Terrible’ to Kim Jong Un, the pantheon of dictators is running out of space.

Be that as it may, the term has been inadvertently diluted and diminished for political purposes. While it may seem like good politics, there are dangers that lie within such a strategy. First, the bar is being dangerously lowered by the misapplication of the term to every flimsy circumstance that may not reflect an iota of what it is supposed to represent.
Second, it obfuscates and confuses and allows the real dictators to point the finger at the democratic leader and takes attention away from the real threat. Third, the evils of that encompass this form of rule should never be taken lightly and it is double trouble when we blur this diabolic dispensation with magnanimous democratic rule.

The autocratic leaders of the world would laugh at the suggestion of the David Arthur Granger regime being categorized as a dictatorship. From a personal standpoint of the President, there is no hint of petulance which is a key characteristic of authoritarian leaders.

This is evidenced by the fact that since his ascension to office in 2015, there has been no case of the classic petty reaction by dictators to criticisms, especially in the age of social media where regimes with tyrannical tendencies invariably fall victim to reprisals against bloggers and those who utilize this ubiquitous forum to lambaste governments.
Since 2015, the President has ruled over a country which has seen the ushering in of, arguably, Guyana’s most democratic and transparent period since its independence. Is this a stretch? The evidence suggests an emphatic no; we have never seen this level of unfettered proliferation of the private media in all of its traditional and modern forms.

In addition, there has not been this level of independence of the judiciary throughout the history of this country and most notably the number of rulings that have gone against the state without any financial, administrative or extra-legal reprisals from the sitting government. Political opponents have been allowed to push the parameters of the law to engage in the vilest attacks against the state. This submission is not trying to suggest that these developments are luxuries, this is what Guyanese demanded on May 11th, 2015 via the ballot box. However, these points are being made to buttress the argumentation at hand. When one thinks of the case of Sayed Jamil Khadem, the opposition politician in Bahrain who was jailed for 6 months for mild criticism of his country’s government or the numerous cases in Russia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, you can appreciate the case being made.

Elections 2020
The Guyana regional and national elections featured misinformation and disinformation in its extreme form. Pinning the tag of dictatorship on the APNU+AFC presidential candidate was the main strategy. In the process, the architects of the grand scheme revealed a gross contradiction. Those who are au fait with this topic will be the first to make known that those with dictatorial tendencies are the ones who readily embrace extreme propaganda. Hannah Arendt cautioned, ‘Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.’ Herein lies the confusion that comes with politicking with this term, the people are subjected to psychological trauma and often times make decisions based on false information.

This sad reality was on full display during the just concluded regional and national elections. This process also provides more evidence of the coalition government being at the opposite end dictatorship. The world has never seen a despotic administration that invites all observers to witness elections in an open and transparent way. There has never been an authoritarian regime that allows independent constitutional agencies to function and respond to court injunctions. We are yet to see a dictatorial regime that allows members of the diplomatic community to openly challenge and demonstrate actions that border on the gross violation of the Geneva Convention.

Guyana does not have a dictatorial regime or a President who is interested in a dictatorship. The misapplication and politicization of the concept are at best, comical and at worst, dangerous based on the submissions made above.