Goading Lawlessness

The authoritarian mind
Few will deny that the 20th century might go down in history as the century of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. But there is an irony about this factoid that is generally glossed over: most of the authoritarian and totalitarian leaders were convinced they were acting for the good of “the people”. Check them out – Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, or Burnham – they all would be hurt if you told them they were doing it to raise their flaccid self esteem. So they were able to justify breaking all the rules in the book – the ends, they declared, justified the means!
And this is exactly what is unfolding with our tin-pot dictators-in-the-making that are doing their darndest to seize power from their perch in the National Assembly in Guyana.
We have been trying to point out, like the voice in the proverbial wilderness, that dictatorships do not just pop up overnight. They arrive after countless, seemingly innocuous rules are broken in the name of “for the good of the people”. When will the Guyanese people wake up and speak out? How many times will the cock crow and how many times will we be betrayed?
The rules were broken to select a Speaker. The rules were broken to form the Committee of Selection. To stop the third betrayal, the government went to the courts and yet the APNU/ AFC wanted to go ahead in the betrayal to proceed with the other committees. And to commit this betrayal, they were willing to break another rule – on the procedure for proceeding. It should not be surprising to anyone. They care not about the substance of their perfidy; why take pause at the procedure?
Caught in their malodorous manoeuvre, APNU/ AFC pleaded first innocuousness: “a storm in a teacup”, cried Basil Williams. But it was Ramjattan who revealed the insidious totalitarian mindset: “these rules that we have before us must not be our masters”! That is, the rules of Parliament and all the other rules of our society must be used expediently. After all, they are being broken “for our own good”.
And from the sidelines, the Muckraker-in-chief, Kissoon, goads the lawlessness by censuring Trotman for delaying the opposition’s continued slide into dictatorship for two days. Beware the Ides of March!!
Expedience
The same opportunistic approach to democracy and its standards were exhibited by Mark Archer, another of Granger’s ex-officers deployed to “oppose and depose” the PPP government from office. Archer takes offence at Minister Clement Rohee’s chiding of the Stabber News and the Muckraker KN for their lack of “balance and objectivity”.
And Archer reveals the totalitarian mindset of APNU/ AFC: “Their journalistic slant is decided by the publisher and the editorial board. Their only responsibility is to truth in reporting and not to be supportive or write favourably about a government in power.”
How does Archer reconcile “truth in reporting” when he accepts that the Stabber and the Muckraker have a “slant”? How can the truth ever be “slanted”? But imagine that a top aide of Brigadier Granger could announce without even a twinge of irony that “independent” newspapers, by definition, cannot “be supportive or write favourably about a government in power”!” By that logic, a newspaper can only be ‘independent’ if it supports the opposition. The Stabber and Muckraker are certainly “independent” by that yardstick! They’re all just a bunch of totalitarian fascists.
The authoritarian mind Few will deny that the 20th century might go down in history as the century of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. But there is an irony about this factoid that is generally glossed over: most of the authoritarian and totalitarian leaders were convinced they were acting for the good of “the people”. Check them out – Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, or Burnham – they all would be hurt if you told them they were doing it to raise their flaccid self esteem. So they were able to justify breaking all the rules in the book – the ends, they declared, justified the means! And this is exactly what is unfolding with our tin-pot dictators-in-the-making that are doing their darndest to seize power from their perch in the National Assembly in Guyana.We have been trying to point out, like the voice in the proverbial wilderness, that dictatorships do not just pop up overnight. They arrive after countless, seemingly innocuous rules are broken in the name of “for the good of the people”. When will the Guyanese people wake up and speak out? How many times will the cock crow and how many times will we be betrayed? The rules were broken to select a Speaker. The rules were broken to form the Committee of Selection. To stop the third betrayal, the government went to the courts and yet the APNU/ AFC wanted to go ahead in the betrayal to proceed with the other committees. And to commit this betrayal, they were willing to break another rule – on the procedure for proceeding. It should not be surprising to anyone. They care not about the substance of their perfidy; why take pause at the procedure? Caught in their malodorous manoeuvre, APNU/ AFC pleaded first innocuousness: “a storm in a teacup”, cried Basil Williams. But it was Ramjattan who revealed the insidious totalitarian mindset: “these rules that we have before us must not be our masters”! That is, the rules of Parliament and all the other rules of our society must be used expediently. After all, they are being broken “for our own good”. And from the sidelines, the Muckraker-in-chief, Kissoon, goads the lawlessness by censuring Trotman for delaying the opposition’s continued slide into dictatorship for two days. Beware the Ides of March!! Expedience The same opportunistic approach to democracy and its standards were exhibited by Mark Archer, another of Granger’s ex-officers deployed to “oppose and depose” the PPP government from office. Archer takes offence at Minister Clement Rohee’s chiding of the Stabber News and the Muckraker KN for their lack of “balance and objectivity”. And Archer reveals the totalitarian mindset of APNU/ AFC: “Their journalistic slant is decided by the publisher and the editorial board. Their only responsibility is to truth in reporting and not to be supportive or write favourably about a government in power.” How does Archer reconcile “truth in reporting” when he accepts that the Stabber and the Muckraker have a “slant”? How can the truth ever be “slanted”? But imagine that a top aide of Brigadier Granger could announce without even a twinge of irony that “independent” newspapers, by definition, cannot “be supportive or write favourably about a government in power”!” By that logic, a newspaper can only be ‘independent’ if it supports the opposition. The Stabber and Muckraker are certainly “independent” by that yardstick! They’re all just a bunch of totalitarian fascists.