Ravi Dev has politically destroyed himself
Freddie Kissoon Column
Kaieteur News
December 8, 2006
I have written, on many occasions, on the intellectual reach of Ravi Dev that has made him an attractive politician to listen to in terms of the theoretical underpinnings of so many solutions that have been put on the table about Guyana 's future.
In last Sunday's KN, in his column, Ravi Dev replied to a piece I wrote last week in which I castigated all the opposition politicians for their pathetic avoidance of reacting to particular and specific violations that are blatant and worrying, but most importantly, the implications these violations have for our newly found democracy.
I was reacting particularly to the barefaced attempt by a powerful figure in Guyana to kill the Celina Atlantic Resort by the uncompromising stance against parking facilities at the resort. No opposition leader to date has seen the danger of allowing this man to behave the way he is doing. It is highly unacceptable that, in a country like Guyana , opposition parties have no time for these specific violations. They tend to concentrate on the larger issues which, while important, should not be their exclusive zone.
No politician in the history of this country, beginning from the forties, has been guiltier of this neglect than Ravi Dev. No one can get Dev to protest individual wrong-doing. He does not see that as his role as a politician. To date, he has not commented on any particular transgression in this country, outside of the macro processes like extra-judicial killings, Parliamentary perversities, the ethnic dilemma drama etc. Dev intellectualises on every major political issue in this country, avoiding the small wrongs that have big consequences.
So what does Dev do in response to my castigation that he does not deal with real life situations involving individuals? He writes a rebuttal in Sunday's KN entitled, “Freddy's peeve.”
I thought he should have captioned it, “Freddy's anger with me.” Indeed I am angry at the way Dev has underrepresented the people who voted for him in 2006.
Given the nature of his response to me, in his column last week, it is clear that the people in ROAR/GAP should assess the nature of Dev's political approach to Guyanese problems.
I make a distinction here between Dev's method and his theory. His theoretical formulations are sound and well argued. His method as a politician is totally unpolitical.
Ravi Dev is trapped in the politics of intellectualism. I find it difficult to continue to accept him as a politician who can serve the needs of the people who voted for his party. So what does Dev do in his reply?
Before I answer that, let me remind you that Dev is defending himself against my charge that he writes about complex, intellectual, theoretical subjects all the time. I went on to say that there is nothing wrong with that, but that a politician must find time to address the individual needs of his people.
In what can only be described as a disappointing, sometimes shocking, but definitely unacceptable display of insensitivity, Dev continued in his old ways.
A long reply to Freddie Kissoon consisted exclusively of intellectual concepts and intellectual names, with not one word admitting that a politician must find time to devote some energy to the concrete problems that affect the average man and woman in the street. I will come to the part of his rebuttal that will, no doubt, politically destroy Dev, because Jagdeo, Ramotar and company must have noted it and will move in for the kill sooner than later.
We will come to that; but first, Dev, in his usual style and being his usual self, rattled off the names of authors that a majority of his readers must have noticed pop up in his columns every week. Last week we were treated to the names of Young, Kymilka, Taylor, Fisk, Horowitz, Lipjhart, Lewis, Gramsci, Habermas, and Heller. That is ten for you.
All of these names were recited in an essay to explain the fundamental contradictions of the Guyanese society. These names were used to adumbrate his theory of the ethnic security dilemma.
Dev even had the temerity, in that article last Sunday, to remind us that the theoretical constructs and intellectual concepts that he has used to contextualise the fundamental dilemma in Guyanese political sociology, he has embraced since the eighties, when he returned to Guyana .
Have you, by now, seen what Dev has done? I accused Dev of not highlighting the individual grievance of the average Guyanese, which is morally incumbent on any politician in Guyana to do. Instead of addressing that particular shortcoming of his, Dev ignores me and my accusation, and writes a defense that he has been repeating for the past 15 years. There was no allocation of even a paragraph to one individual case. One must remember that Dev is not a Frederick Kissoon or Christopher Ram, Dev is a politician who leads a political party and has asked people since 2001 to vote for his party.
When asked by me if he cannot find time for the sugar-cake seller that has been abused, this is what Dev wrote: “If Glenn Lall gives me a daily column versus the present four per month, I may have the luxury of contextualising the concrete abuses and contradictions that Freddy exhorts me to notice….”
Note the choice of words of this politician. It is clear to me that he does not see his role as a politician the way most politicians in the world do. First, the word “luxury” must be noted.
He finds it a luxury to connect the individual that has been wronged to the context of Guyana 's oppressive political culture. Secondly, the word “notice” must be looked at. He didn't say the abuses Freddy wants me to speak out against, or denounce. He used the word “notice.”
Finally, Dev can only “notice” the problems of the Guyanese people and give himself the “luxury” to deal with them if he is offered a daily column like me. Take my daily column, Ravi ! Not that it would change you a bit.