ONE of the political repugnancies that endure in this country is the fictional binary that is not confronted enough by people whose intellectual training should empower them to expose these fallacies. In this binary, an anti-government polemicist is invested with virtue and admiration because he/she criticises the government.

A debater writing in support of the government is either a PPP lap dog, which the Editor-in-Chief of Stabroek News Anand Persaud described me as or a PPP attack dog which Dr. Nigel Westmaas paints me as. But Persaud and Westmaas are still to identify lap dogs and attack dogs within the anti-government sphere. Persaud and Westmaas will never discover lap dogs and attack dogs on the anti-government horizons for reasons of epistemological mediocrity.

You see an anti-government critic for these people cannot be a lap dog because it is an epistemological contradiction. An anti-government critic, according to these people, is inherently democratic and a democratically inclined people cannot be a lap dog. So, Rickford Burke will never be described by Persaud or Westmaas as an attack dog. In fact, Westmaas frequently appears on Burke’s social media programme.

Debaters who support the democratic thrust of President Ali are either soup drinkers or people working for their supper. This is the fictional binary I refer to above. The latest expression of this thinking is Eric Phillips of African Cultural and Development Association (ACDA). The government has given an organisation named the Association of People of African Descent (APAD) to use the National Park for the 2024 Emancipation Day celebration.

Here is what Phillips wrote yesterday (Saturday): “APAD was formed by Shaun Allicock, the husband of Minister of Commerce, Oneidge Walrond. I know this to be true because I was invited to the first meeting. APAD was launched in August 2023, a year ago, by Minister Kwame McKoy and Minister Oneidge Walrond.”

Why the need to mention that the organisation was formed by the husband of a minister? What makes the organisation implausible or unacceptable because it is founded by a minister’s spouse?

Here is the fictional binary exposed for the world to see. The psychology of Phillips is graphically visible – APAD cannot be a credible African organisation because it was formed by the husband of a government minister. Phillips went on to write: “This relatively new organisation claims it is hosting its Emancipation Event in direct competition with ACDA, because it wants to bring unity to the African community.”

What is the efficacious content of an argument that says a newly-born entity has less credibility than an older one? The criterion is functionalism. The Guyana Human Rights Association is 47 years old but it has no functionalism and is virtually kept alive by the Stabroek News.

Why is ACDA a credible organization? Because it is 40 years old? Phillips tells us that for 31 years ACDA has sponsored the Emancipation Day at the park. But why that has to be an exclusive licence and no other organisation can seek to hold an Emancipation Day event at the park?

The question that needs to be answered is: how credible is ACDA and does it speak for African Guyanese, and APAD does not? The recurring problem with ACDA and International Decade for People of African Descent Assembly – Guyana (IDPADA-G) is that those organisations arrogate to themselves the right to speak for African people. Okay, let us say, we can turn a blind eye to that arrogance. The fault line is that both ACDA and IDPADA-G are into anti-government politics and that is where their credibility is called into question. Thousands of African Guyanese are not politically inclined and large numbers do not support the PNC.

ACDA, led by the same woman for the past 40 years, is openly anti-government. Those who deny this reality are simply being shameless. Since 1992 when the PPP came into government, you cannot find one press release from ACDA that has acknowledged a positive direction by the government. Look at the executives of IDPADA-G, they all have either a thin or thick relationship with the PNC in the past and at the present. It boggles the mind that when IDPADA-G was formed, the Guyana government and the PPP as the ruling party with prominent Africans in it were never invited to seek executive positions.

Phillips wrote: “Needless to say, very few individuals and organisations in Guyana and the Caribbean believe APAD’s story and that the event is to unify Africans in Guyana.”

How does Phillips know this? Why Phillips thinks the Guyanese people would not welcome the birth of more African organisations to represent African people? But more importantly, do ACDA and IDPADA-G speak for the entirety of the African population? I do not think so.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.