By Festus L. Brotherson, Jr.
Guyana Chronicle
May 20, 2001

AS A teenager, my reaction to a first time experience with serious betrayal was to write a poem that sought to search my soul for answers while venting hurt feelings.

It brought a sense of peace. Most of the text has fallen from memory, but there are occasional bestirrings, as in this verse:

"Roaming through fertile field of life

Romping, indulging, having fun

I came upon flowers of strife

Interspersed at every turn.

I paused to ponder

Mistrust crept o'er me

That God had grouped to wander

Just, unjust, righteous and thief!

Why this memory spur? For a lot of people, the agreement between President Bharrat Jagdeo and Opposition Leader Mr. Desmond Hoyte to set up special committees marks a scandalous, serious betrayal of trust by the President; a trust that was won and conferred on him with the grant of legitimacy after his overwhelming victory with the PPP/C at the March 19 general elections.

Six bipartisan committees have been established by the agreement. They will address major areas of interest towards development by betterment of lives, cessation of unrest and reversals of alleged neglect due to alleged PPP/C government policies. For a significant number in Mr. Hoyte's PNC/R camp, there also appears to be a sense of betrayal among battle-axes who want "a fight to the finish" - even if this means civil war based upon racial hatred. In the authoritarian, anti-democratic PNC/R organisation, such preference is being squelched. In the wider democratic society built by the PPP/C and other players in the political system such as civil society, the resentment towards Mr. Jagdeo cannot be suppressed. People have to be persuaded to a different viewpoint.

But the feelings of betrayal do seem to be more widespread and deep in the President's core constituency of East Indians. One main complaint is that Mr. Jagdeo was intimidated into the talks and then into working together with Hoyte by the brutish violence of the Black-dominated PNC/R and the constant threat of its eruption and escalation that has left East Indians with a great sense of insecurity about their personal safety in an environment riddled with fear. That fear permeates East Indian communities is obvious. That racial tensions have been heightened by the PNC/R's reckless, self-serving tactics of `slow fire' and `more fire' is easily verifiable. And there is the unfulfilled, undisputed requirement that the first function of any legitimate government is to provide freedom from fear in the environment.

But does this mean that that the President's decision to proceed with talks and collaborative work with the main opposition party is a serious betrayal of trust? No. It is a demonstration of statesmanship. Put another way, the decision highlights a capacity to put the wider national interest above political ones, despite the critical importance of the latter. In fact, the decision might advance the president's political interests and the national agenda. Here's why.

While in the narrower scheme of all things immediately political, Mr. Hoyte's PNC/R behaviour might reflect a victory of sorts for the main opposition forces by the use of racial violence and its appurtenances of fear and bitterness, the truth is that in a more sober calculus, it is a hollow one at best, Pyrrhic at worst. The reality is that the PPP/C has taken the moral high ground and President Jagdeo is demonstrating commitment to his pledge that his leadership is non-discriminatory and will be exercised on behalf of ALL Guyanese, regardless of race or religion. True, this is a moral argument in a society whose politics and morality have been "marginalised" by obnoxious race mongering of the PNC/R that has "disenfranchised" voters' preference. And in such a society where there is the additional problem of not nearly enough material resources and wealth generation to facilitate more equitable distribution, moral arguments are not as persuasive as situational ethics that provide immediate material gains by foul means.

However, benefits derived from situational ethics tend to be limited to short-term life precisely because of their lack of moral grounding. Remember the biblical parable of distributed talents. If not, at least let us re-familiarise ourselves with Roberto Michel's Iron Law of Oligarchy. Given human nature, Michel argued, never mind how one "equalises a group with grant of equal power/resources..., in the passage of time, by dint of talents and other innate gifts, some in the group will become more powerful than others.

Michel's theory has ample support in the related writings of Gaetano Mosca and in Vilferdo Pareto's three tomes. The very authoritarian, "equalising," socialist politics of the PNC over 28 years of unbridled political power and non-consultative administrative style, demonstrates the reality of Michel's iron law in the current cries of marginalisation and disenfranchisement. These cries are supported not by evidence, but by audacious thuggery against innocent hardworking people who proudly execute their talents under revered balance of individualism and togetherness as a core value for success. The fact is that PNC/R politics has made its support base almost exclusively dependent on government for most uplift and progress instead of reliance on one's own individual gifts. PPP/C politics has not, and I predict that this divide between the main races will continue five years from now when election time is imminent; this despite whatever "equalising" actions the bipartisan committees take. There is always hope, of course, that those consumed with power sharing arguments and more enlightened, responsible leaders in the PNC/R camp will switch tactics and help PNC/R rank and file develop more relevant competitive skills outside the instinct for gain by way of violence and demanding the rewards of victory without being victorious.

There are some risks in President Jagdeo's cooperation with Mr. Hoyte in the six working committees. The perception can emerge that established governmental apparatuses for administration of Guyana are being superseded, and that rulership by committee is now the modus operandi of national government. Parliament might be seen a mere rubber-stamping agency of the PNC/R which lost the elections! Beyond that, what happens if the PNC/R is unsatisfied with the work of the committees and the party's measure of progress is not met? More violence?

Certainly, Mr. Jagdeo is well aware of these risks and this is why he must be admired for sheer fortitude in emphasising the national interest over the misgivings and unhappiness of core constituents who are pivotal to his retention of power. Already, Mr. Ravi Dev of Rise, Organise, and Rebuild (ROAR) is proving himself to be adept at tapping the feelings of betrayal among the PPP/C's support base. We should remember though, that one very effective measure of political leadership excellence concerns the willingness of the political leader to go the unpopular route in search of benefits, confident that, in time, the eventual result will justify his taking of that route.

There are two other considerations. The agreement the president reached with Mr. Hoyte contains ideas and programmes already articulated by Mr. Jagdeo over time and are contained in existing documents such as the National Strategy for Development (NDS). He has correctly chosen not to brag about this but his lieutenants should highlight this fact more energetically. Secondly, President Jagdeo is performing as well he could under given conditions. Civil war would be completely ruinous for Guyana, and the PNC/R's chosen strategy of building and deepening race hate will inexorably lead to such an outcome in which both major races would lose almost everything. Attracting local or foreign investment would be impossible under such conditions. Mr. Jagdeo has also chosen not to accept status quo arrangements or to quell them by a declaration of a state of emergency and the rigid enforcement of its sweeping provisions.

What he has chosen is the realm of the possible - finding common ground for cooperating with foes in search of rebuilding morality in society. Morality is itself grounded in trust and its resurrection requires baby steps towards its achievement. The committee structure might well represent those baby steps towards inclusiveness in government. Any other way would be unworkable in the Guyana of today of rampant distrust.

Let us also recall the time-proven wisdom of Aristotle on the question of policy directions in statecraft: "Obtaining the absolute best is usually unattainable for the general run of states. And so the good lawgiver and true statesman must have his eyes open not only to the absolute best but to what is best under actual given conditions."

If we ask ourselves what is best in the actual given conditions of Guyana, the honest response would be that the establishment of the six committees was the best choice.

All politics involves rewards of core constituents and that will never change. First and foremost, there has got be an environment free from fear and a building of more wealth in poverty-stricken Guyana.