Dear Editor,
TRANSPARENCY is a keyword for all civil society groups. Further, numerous formal international organisations, and especially UN (United Nations) agencies, also have elaborate language about transparency. Governments all over the world, as well as domestic, regional, and global corporations claim transparency as a fundamental value.

In Guyana, the self-described group called Article 13 advertises itself as a champion of transparency. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let us examine some claims made by the group’s apparent leader, published in Kaieteur News (October 03, 2022, p. 02).

According to Article 13, the PPP/C administration and Exxon and its partners are collaborating in ways that harm the national interest. In other words, there is a quid pro quo between the two, meaning mutual benefits derived through contrived and concealed deal making. Article 13 claims, “Government’s handling of the oil contract exemplifies its embrace of corruption…” And further, that “the reach of corruption is now leaking all over, in all ministries”.

As with most Article 13 pieces of propaganda, the only actual evidence provided is the claim itself, which means no evidence at all. This lacuna is a fundamental breach of protocol for any organisation that claims to represent the people. It is worse yet for an outfit that has also tried to seize the high ground of openness; of truth-seeking and truth-speaking, and of the moral conscience of the poor and the powerless.

The actual truth of the matter is that rather than being a promoter of good governance, Article 13 is yet another outfit that has a political agenda. Nothing is wrong with that, because Guyana is a democratic country, and free speech abounds. But transparency is not the business of Article 13, and this notwithstanding the personal credibility of its key advocates. More than anything else, Article 13 seems to have joined the bandwagon of oil hysterics to find love, or better yet, to find the sort of jouissance identified by Jacques Lacan.

For Lacan, immense pleasure could be found in the display of oneself in the public domain. Yet, for the pleasure to be sustained over time, a great deal of opacity is required. The claim is made that “nepotism and cronyism is the legacy of this [PPP/C} government.” In fact, lots of people in the civil-society space derive great personal pleasure from hearing and uttering this mantra. All too often, local groups perform to win the admiration or even (Hegelian) recognition of some foreign group suffering from the white saviour complex. As Ravi Dev noted recently in a different context, the ‘coloniality of power’ lives on.

Dr. Randy Persaud
Office of the President &
Professor Emeritus