I am not an advocate for Marxism and certainly do subscribe to the notion that we should view the human condition through one theoretical lens. That being mentioned, if history is our guide, it is hard to argue against the idea of the battle between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’ in the realm of politics. Even the most ardent anti-Marxist advocate would find it difficult to avoid this measurement for analytical purposes. Since time immemorial, whenever humans have converged to compete for the acquisition of power, there is always one side that carries the hopes and aspirations of the poor and another side that bears the interests of the bourgeoisie or those endowed with resources. When geopolitics is intertwined with this scenario, in a globalized world, it becomes complex but no less instructive. If the people’s leader is not easily controlled or his/her interests do not align with the wishes of big foreign states and the regards of capital, the triumph of the will of the people is usually never easy.

NOTEWORTHY HISTORICAL EXAMPLES

In the service of the abovementioned, the examples of Patrice Lumumba and Salvador Allende are unavoidable. If this column had centered its focus on Guyana, Dr. Cheddi Jagan would have been a necessary mention. From all historical accounts, Patrice Hemery Lumumba was a man of the people. He led the Democratic Republic of Congo to Independence and served as Prime Minister from September 1960. The beloved Prime Minister did not play the geopolitics cards right and was imprisoned and shot under the command of Joseph-Désiré Mobutu who carried out the wishes of the big powerful nations. Perhaps, the most egregious but the ultimate best exemplar is the case of Chile in 1970. Salvador Allende won free and fair Chilean elections and was widely loved by the people. He embraced Communism and incurred the wrath of the mighty United States. The Church Committee Report documented:

“Covert United States involvement in Chile in the decade between 1963 and 1973 was extensive and continuous. The Central Intelligence Agency spent three million dollars in an effort to influence the outcome of the 1964 Chilean presidential elections. Eight million dollars was spent, covertly, in the three years between 1970 and the military coup in September 1973, with over three million dollars expended in fiscal year 1972 alone.” (Pg.1)

The fruit of this dastardly effort was the violent overthrow of President Allende in 1973. When the US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger was interviewed by Newsweek in 1974 and asked to explain the reasons for these actions by the US, he replied: “I don’t see why we have to let a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people”.

FOREIGN INTERVENTIONS

Foreign intervention is the method used by countries to advance their interests; this is usually executed overtly or covertly. Research has established the United States as the country with the most interventions at 81 from 1946-2000. Among 938 global elections examined, the United States and Russia were involved in about one out of nine (117), with the majority of those (68%) being by way of secret operations, rather than open manoeuvers (Devin, 2016). It has to be noted, some interventions have been for the greater human good and others have been downright diabolic with little regard for sovereignty and human rights. Besides, the United States of America has rescued numerous people around the world from the deadly rule of brutal dictators through their interventions. Continuing in this vein, academia has established two types of foreign interventions: process intervention, where the foreign power seeks to support the fair rules of democracy and has no horse in the race and partisan intervention, where the foreign nation-state openly shows support for one side (Corstange&Marinov,2012). Insofar as the subject at hand is concerned, it has always been about which side leaders find themselves on. They might be on the side of the people but if not aligned with powerful interests and the people’s victory labours along.

THE PEOPLE’S VICTORY IN THE AGE OF MISINFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION

A political campaign headed by the people’s leader can be well-intentioned and based on a love of all, but if the other side has a war chest, an unrelenting and aggressive disinformation machinery, all lofty ideals die at the altar of the subversion of democracy. “On average, an electoral intervention in favour of one side contesting the election will increase its vote share by about 3 percent,” (Levin, 2016). In 2018, social media and disinformation were used to influence elections in at least 18 countries, according to the democracy advocacy group, Freedom House. It seems this is the new normal. As a consequence, the good leader normally stands on truth but is subject to a blitzkrieg of untruths. Where this obtains, it is never easy to cut through the litany of propagandistic onslaught and this could result in the denial of the real will of the people.

All the above-mentioned makes clear, the people’s victory is never easily achieved and is often denied.