The trouble with people who enter politics is that the foot will end up in the mouth if you do not have even a small dose of familiarity with theories, concepts, and paradigms in political behaviour. Science does not govern human behaviour but over a period of time, behaviour becomes predictable.
When you enter politics you must be familiar with some general theories of governmental behaviour, and you have to have access to concepts that will guide you in understanding how governments react in different situations based on the dynamism that underlie changes in life.
Businessman, Terrance Campbell entered politics in late 2019 and dropped out only to renter the arena in 2025. He has aligned himself with the opposition. Naturally, Mr. Campbell will socialise with anti-government actors.
In that company, emotions replace analyses in many “watering-hole” hangouts. If you are a novice in politics you can internalise some misleading things said during the lime. If you do not know better you can end up embarrassing yourself.

This was what happened to Terrace Campbell. He probably heard some extremist friend of his saying that the PPP government is using state resources in a diabolical way, and he ran with it and shouted down in a social media programme with Vishnu Bisram (the man with six Master’s Degree and six doctorates) that the Guyana Government in using resources in a diabolical way to win over other ethnic groups apart from Indian people.
This was the comical and inverted way of using the word “diabolical.” I had devoted an entire column last Sunday to exposing Campbell’s mediocre understanding of how to use that word. What I will do now is to use the word to demonstrate how one should use it when analysing governmental behaviour. The notes here will have to [be]very brief.

There is no such thing in political theory named, “the diabolical use of national resources” by undemocratic regimes. The word is nonchalantly used by politicians to describe the action of a president or prime minister whom they feel is misusing state resources for narrow power intentions.
Always, when you use the word “diabolical” you are pointing to a president or prime minister who utilises national resources for narrow power expansion. If a government uses the country’s resources to benefit different classes and ethnic communities to elevate them in the economy, an opposition politician will look silly to refer to that policy as diabolical.

Here now is what can be termed the diabolical use of resources. It exists in three contexts. The first is colonial subjugation where resources are used to militarise the colony to preserve foreign exploitation. The Pakistani political theorist, Hamza Alavi coined the term, “the over-developed state.” Alavi said that resources used by the colonial power to militarise colony is continued by post-colonial dictators.

We just have to look right here at home to see how the diabolical use of state resources started in the colony was carried over by the post-colonial autocrat. This is the second context of the use of the word, “diabolical.”
During the reign of Forbes Burnham, military expenditure rose from G$8.7M in 1973 to G$48.72 in 1976. In this period, one out of 35 in the population was a member of a state security entity.
These entities were: the police, the army, the National Service, the People’s Militia, the National Guard Service. (sources: Ken Danns, “Militarization and National Development,” TRANSITION, Georgetown, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1978; Sidharta Darshan, “Impact of state capitalism: Guyana, 1966-1980, MA Thesis in Political Science, University of Guyana, and Father Andrew Morrison, “Justice: The Struggle for Democracy in Guyana, 1952, 1992.)

The third context in which you can refer to the diabolical use of resources is superpower rivalry and great power rivalry in international relations where big powers spend a huge part of their budget on defence in the expectation that some imaginary war is coming. The USSR couldn’t afford to keep up with the Americans in the Cold War.

The US was by far a richer country. The USSR had to collapse because resources for development went into defence spending. While the USSR and the USA were diverting resources to the military, China was quietly using resources for development purposes. It paid off. Today, China is better off than both Russia and the USA.

Campbell used the word “diabolical” to refer to resource distribution to other ethnic communities that the ruling party wants to attract. This is a positive use of funds. The ethnic communities are entitled to it and will welcome it. Secondly, by what logic can you buy a community if you spend money on them? Who says they will vote for you? Thirdly, doesn’t the country benefit when resources are spread evenly on classes and ethnic communities?

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.