Who, what, where is civil society
Cassandra's Candid Corner
Stabroek News
April 1, 2001
This confounded nonsense has got to stop. But my saying so ent gun mek
it happen. In the last CCC, I lamented about the disruption in society's
daily routines, because of political shenanigans and impasses. Nothing
has
changed during the previous week. If anything, things have gotten
worse - if for no other reason than fear is injected into the proceedings,
and beatings, muggings and lootings are being reported. While all of this
is going
on, there is a deafening silence, even from those who, only a
few weeks ago, were making all sorts of utterings in order to get your
vote.
Civil Society, itself not totally without a self-serving agenda,
is performing all sorts of magic acts: an intellectual not known for any
moral turpitude sits down with an uneducated thug and demagogue; two
lawyers, whose personal philosophies are poles apart have dialogue around
a table to discuss strategies for dealing with the PPP & PNC; "Plain
Talk" is interviewed by "Straight Up". What jiggery pokery is this? Does
Civil Society want to be taken seriously? Is Civil Society revolutionary?
Is it going to take to the hustings and talk to the Guyanese people face
to face? In fact, does Civil Society itself have a face? Or is it a
diffuse, amorphous body that comes and goes, waits and sees, acquires and
loses members? Does Civil Society have a plan?
One of my erstwhile
mentors, in chastising me for being a member of this undefined 'Civil
Society,' said bluntly that members of this group do not call a spade a
spade; in fact, its members make double-spaded presentations, and tend to
condemn mainly one party - all of which was quite sickening. I was asked
where and what Civil Society's comment was, relative to the monkey
business that occurred between 6:00 pm and 9:30 pm on March 19, when
polling stations in certain, very specific areas were not only kept open,
but where observers from
political parties were physically barred from
entry. Also, 'Civil Society' was chastised for not recognizing that the
electoral imperfections damaged the PPP/C more than they did the
PNC/R.
Well, not only does this respected person have the uncanny
ability to disturb my equilibrium, but because she is so often right, it
would be silly not to ruminate on what was posited. In addition to those
thoughts, came the earful from one dreadlocked comrade who categorically
and vehemently asserted on CH 9 that Civil Society and the small parties
have no role to play in solving Guyana's problems, and that it was a
straight fight between the PPP and the PNC.
Perhaps they are both
right. Hey, do we have the basis for a political union here? But
seriously, how can I fault the logic that says if 'Civil Society' does not
have the guts (like GUARD) to go to the street corners, how can it want to
be in a position to influence decisions. Furthermore, I am particularly
suspicious of the Private Sector element in all this. Their motives might
not be as virtuous as they might want us to believe. Look at the SN item
(30.3.2001) entitled "Many businesses hit by declining revenues amidst
political unrest." They want to stop the nonsense, because it is
disturbing their pockets. That's OK, I have no problem with that. Others
might have more noble reasons, but even then one cannot help but think
that they too might be having greater aspirations relative to future
positions in any 'sharing' arrangement.
Having said all that, I am
convinced that there are individuals who possess the nobility of spirit,
who are unencumbered by private ambitions, and who are genuinely concerned
about solving the current imbroglio. Is there a role for such persons?
They might have proven themselves to be good
managers/technicians/scientists/performers with track records of
unmitigated success. But can these individuals really be defined as Civil
Society? The sociologists must have a definition for Civil Society which
might include special interest groups (the farming community, trade
unions, the legal and medical fraternity, etc.), but these members of the
so called Civil Society that are emerging are not part of or even
representative of any such groups, can their collective voices be heard?
Or are their ideas to be peripheralised, destined to remain in the small
rooms where they were shared in an atmosphere of intellectual
incest?
In a letter captioned "The dark clouds of disunity," one
contributor opined that the Amerindians of our country were now part of
the nation's racial divide, as there is now a political party for the
Amerindians. Which party is
that, pray tell? Surely not the GAP or the
GAP/WPA alliance. The fundament of the GAP/WPA alliance was established to
create a meaningful nexus between the Coast and the Hinterland. GAP's
leader Mr Hardy, like so many of the Amerindian political leaders, does
not even have the characteristic features of those Amerindian brothers. In
fact I understand his father is a full-blooded Irishman. The Amerindians
shared their votes on March 19 among several parties - as they have
traditionally done. The writer of the letter should have a re-look at the
figures that have emanated from the 'Amerindian Regions.'
Sometimes
media headlines say one thing then the substantive text reveals the
opposite. On other occasions, specific, objective, reader-friendly
releases are compiled on technical matters and offered to the media for
dissemination. The reporters/writers then feel compelled to cut-and-paste
the offering. What emerges is garbled and without logic. That's on a good
day. Often, too often, the piece which was subject to dismemberment
appears with the wrong, even counterproductive, message. I know that
journalists take pride in their profession, but my advice would be -
especially for the junior practitioners and those who did not have the
benefit of a good and functional education - to disassociate themselves
from the arrogance that only they can write well and that good journalese
demands the taking apart of a skilled technician's presentation.
In
this vein, a news headline (SN 30.3.2001) made me smile the other day.
"CARICOM vets call for temporary 'green line,' used tyres ban." Well, my
first thought was that the vets were demanding a temporary "green
line"
and also that they were requesting a ban on used tyres. That was
at least one interpretation of the headline, and the continuance of the
green line, temporary or otherwise, was exactly what they did not want.
Would it have been so difficult, within the context of clarity and
unambiguity, to write "CARICOM vets call for temporary ban on 'green line'
and used tyres."
Ah well, if a "not" becomes a "now," thus changing
diametrically the thrust of an argument, and if well known figures are
given other names in photo captions, who am I to complain? Or as one
editor told me: why make the effort (to say nothing of the cost associated
therewith), when the vast majority will not pick up the mistake nor
appreciate the nuance difference the error creates.