IF I was to write a book on the Forbes Burnham regime, I would title it: “Forbes Burnham: Darkness at Noon.” If I was to write a book on the moral degeneration of Guyana’s 1970s revolutionary movement, I would title it: “Working People’s Alliance: Darkness at Noon.”

I like the collection of words that goes under the title, “Darkness at Noon.” In case you are too young to know, that is the title of one of the most famous novels in the English language, written by a man who was not trained in philosophy, but his existentialist mind allowed him to philosophically reflect on the fatalistic, pessimistic ingredients of the human condition.

His name was Arthur Koestler.

The term “darkness at noon” symbolises the subordination of moral values to the brutal pragmatism that governs human instincts. At the banal, ordinary level, it means that in the end, humans will always embrace the philosophy that the end justifies the means.

Darkness at noon denotes that the sun never shines on civilisation and we live in perpetual gloom where expectations based on moral foundations are never realised. This is putting it too strongly, of course. The human spirit will continue to generate sunshine that supplants the darkness of the human mind.

I can think of no better choice of words to describe the reasoning of one of the commissioners of the Guyana Election Commission (GECOM), Vincent Alexander, than “darkness at noon.”

Let’s offer background material to the Alexander scenario. According to the constitution, the Opposition Leader picks three of the six GECOM commissioners.

Under the constitution, there is no office or agency that can remove any of the six commissioners. Simply put, they cannot be dismissed or removed. 20 years ago, the Opposition PNC selected Mr. Alexander to be one of the party’s commissioners.

The then leader of the Opposition, Robert Corbin, felt he no longer wanted Mr. Alexander to represent his party’s interest in GECOM and asked Mr. Alexander to resign; he refused and the Opposition lived with the political caricature and administrative contortion of having an Opposition commissioner it had no faith in.

Just to remind you, the Opposition was an elected person from the votes of a general election.

The PNC opposition, which appointed Mr. Alexander 20 years ago, is no longer the majority opposition party in parliament. There is another majority parliamentary opposition party which came into being after the September 1 election. The new fellow wants the PNC commissioners to be replaced by his choice. Mr. Alexander’s response was to atavistically revert to his legalistic self, 20 years ago. He told the new opposition leader that he cannot remove him.

Let’s quote Alexander: “Whether that is fair or unjust is another problem, but I am giving you what is law.”

What Alexander is saying highlights the precarious existence of civilisation. If the law says a commissioner is an office holder for life, where does that leave the moral foundation on which civilisation rests?

Where are the moral rules governing human conduct? How can Mr. Alexander tell the Guyanese people that the law says he is a commissioner for life, therefore no one can remove him? Why can’t Mr. Alexander remove himself based on the moral laws that govern human conduct and must be observed if modern civilisation is to survive?

These moral laws are emblazoned on the face of civilisation so everyone can read them. A strong moral law that holds civilisation intact is that everyone has a right to a hearing in the event of an accusation. Another strong moral law, which is now recorded in statute, is that we must recognise the equality of gender.

The moral law that Mr. Alexander must be forced by society to obey is that an elected opposition wants to have its own commissioners. An elected opposition says it does not want the present opposition commissioners to represent it. There is no moral dilemma here. The ethical policy for Mr. Alexander and the other two PNC commissioners is to allow the new opposition to decide who it wants to represent it in GECOM.

It is an ugly expression of an autocratic mind to say that since you are a permanent GECOM commissioner, then you are staying there until the constitution is changed. The most intriguing question for the three PNC commissioners to answer is why they want to stay there and deliberate on election issues on behalf of a client who does not want them to speak on its behalf.

The very Alexander, in the past 30 years, has condemned the PPP Government for ruling Guyana without moral obligations. Now he has been exposed as someone who attaches no importance to moral obligations, without which, there always will be darkness at noon.

 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.