Stay and discuss
Editorial
Stabroek News
February 8, 2004
It was thirteen years after the Duke of Wellington had confirmed his military reputation by defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, that he was offered the post of Prime Minister. The Duke accepted, albeit with reluctance, and in due course summoned his ministers to a Cabinet meeting. As it was, however, things did not quite go according to the battle plan. "An extraordinary affair," he was to remark afterwards; "I gave them their orders and they wanted to stay and discuss them."
One was reminded of Wellington when the PPP issued their press release following an eight-hour Central Committee meeting last Saturday. This is not to suggest that any single person among the membership was playing the role of Wellington, let alone that anyone in the gathering had military associations; it was more that the statement conveyed an impression of the movers and shakers of the party imposing a monolithic view, leaving no room for debate. "Discipline and unity of ranks highlighted," ran the strapline, a sentiment which was reinforced at the conclusion of the release.
All this talk of discipline and unity - for which read uniformity - has come about because there is one member of the Central Committee, Mr Khemraj Ramjattan, who has views which diverge from the official position of the PPP. In political parties in other democratic jurisdictions, including those in office, it is considered quite the norm for a variety of opinions on any given topic to flourish; one need look no further than Prime Minister Blair and his Labour Party to see evidence of that. Furthermore, it is also frequently the case that the debate about a particular issue between various factions of a party is conducted in the public domain through the agency of the media - the matter of the war in Iraq being a case in point.
The obsession with uniformity and secrecy where the governing party here is concerned, is something of an anachronism in these modern democratic times. One can understand its historical roots; the problem is that as an approach it has outlived its usefulness, and in the current circumstances is doing the PPP actual harm.
The party hierarchy has cast Mr Ramjattan in the role of enemy, accusing him not so much of criticizing the PPP, but of "attacking" it. Reference was made in the press release to the "vehemence of his positions and remarks," and the fact that he had "attacked" the party leadership and the Government "consistently and unjustifiably." The least that can be said is that one can think of a few members of the party and Government who are no strangers to vehemence - and this in the public arena, not even the inner sanctum of Freedom House. And if it is that the statement was being euphemistic and something stronger was intended than vehemence, then one can also think of some members of the party and Government who are no slouches in the department of the ad hominem attack either.
The main access the public has had to Mr Ramjattan's views is the statements he has made in his capacity as President of the Guyana Bar Association, and the columns he has written for this newspaper. While not everyone will agree with the stances he has taken, he could not be accused of expressing himself offensively, or of failing to argue out his points in a rational way. As such, therefore, there is no reasonable person who would deem Mr Ramjattan's views "unjustifiable," irrespective of whether they concur with them or not. Disagreement is the essence of healthy debate, and lively debate is the foundation of a functioning democracy. The party leadership does itself no credit by appearing to be unable to respond to contrary viewpoints in a measured and logical fashion without seeing the purveyor of those viewpoints as a hostile force.
As anyone who has had experience of groups or organizations where freedom of expression is the norm, knows, it is almost impossible over an extended period of time to get absolute agreement on every single topic. There will sometimes be a certain amount of give and take, and sometimes the minority will bow to the opinion of the majority. But there will always be occasions when there will be no reconciling of positions. Yet amazingly, for half a century the PPP has managed, with only one or two exceptions, no matter what the composition of the Central Committee, to project a single view. And if there were members who may have harboured doubts about that view, they have surely for the most part kept their own counsel. While undoubtedly there must have been many meaningful discussions in the party over the years, such a remarkable record suggests another organizing principle at work which has been superimposed on the rough and tumble of the democratic process.
In this, one of the party's darker hours, the last thing it should be doing is shutting out internal - or even external - debate and imposing "discipline." It does not matter what else is going on in the country at this time, it is overshadowed by the allegations about a death squad, some of them implicating Minister Gajraj. And with each passing day, the situation gets worse. How can the higher echelons of the party possibly think that all of this can be brazened out, and that the problem will eventually just evaporate on its own?
And how can they possibly believe that by trying to force into line the only member of the Central Committee who - as far as anyone outside Freedom House is aware - is trying to confront the reality, they will restore the public credibility of the party?
The PPP has much in its history of which it can be immensely proud. Let it not fall down now, and open itself to the accusation of departing from what is best in its traditions, and of acting dishonourably - and failing to act in the current circumstances is an act of commission, not omission. Now is not the time to hand down orders in the Central Committee; now is the time to stay and discuss - including with Mr Ramjattan.