The fascists within

Of recent, there has been a concerted effort from some quarters to designate the government of the day in provocatively extreme terms. Two terms – dictatorship and fascism – have been thrown about frequently and they bear some examination; especially in this period before the next general elections. The elections, we all know to our cost, have a tendency to become quite tense (to say the least) and we certainly owe it to ourselves to clarify these labels before the election season actually begins.

As to “dictatorship”, events in North Africa that are unfolding nightly via our TVs in our living rooms should help to illuminate the term. The fundamental problem in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and the other nations that are in the throes of political turmoil is that the mass of the people could not freely choose their governments. The leaders had generally imposed themselves on the countries through coups of one sort or another, and for decades have refused to hold free and fair elections.

In Guyana, our elections since 1992 have been certified “free and fair” by a host of local and international observers. In fact, this has led the EU to declare that it does not feel that need to observe the upcoming elections.

A “free and fair election” is the most objective election benchmark of a country’s democratic credentials: it can be observed, measured, and evaluated. It is, however, not the sole criterion. Various observers and commentators also feel that democracy should also deliver certain rights to citizens – the right to assemble, freedom of speech, a free media, etc. These rights, however, are in no country completely unrestricted. It is conceded that these rights when exercised by individuals can infringe on the rights of others. The state consequently establishes guidelines so that the society can function for the benefit of all. For example, in an oft quoted caution, freedom of speech does not confer the right to yell, “Fire!” in a crowded theatre.

A free media certainly does not give its members the right to identify and expose members of our incipient intelligence community, as recently occurred here. Even the iconic New York Times, the standard for excellence in journalism, re WikiLeaks, worked in collaboration with the U.S. Pentagon to avoid identifying operatives in the field. That such journalistic imprudence could be tolerated says much of the surfeit of democracy – the “dictatorship” – that prevails here. The same could be said for the daily provocations that emanate from the pens of some for citizens to rise up against the government even while the sanction of the ballot box remains untrammelled. We did not notice any tanks and water cannons, much less bullets, when an opposition party recently picketed the OP recently – as has been the case in the dictatorships of North Africa. The party certainly was allowed to exercise its freedom of assembly.

The word “fascist” has been the other term of opprobrium used to categorise the government, but it is obvious that its users have no clue as to what the word actually means. They simply deploy it as a curse word. Fascism was an ideology that famously evolved in Germany (under Hitler), in Italy (under Mussolini), in some of their satellites and in Japan (under Hirohito) before WWII. Stressing xenophobic nationalism where the leaders represents in his person the “will” of the people, “Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong.” How can this categorise our government-facilitated and functioning multi-ethnic, multicultural, multireligious nation?

What is evident in Guyana conversely is the marked fascist tendency of the very commentators that use the term to deny others the right to hold opinions that differ from theirs. We must beware of these fascists within.