The right to free speech is not necessarily the right to be taken seriously. The much vented views of persons like David Hinds, Lincoln Lewis and Vincent Alexander published in Guyana’s newsprint are all stirring the same pot with different spoons. Their discourse contain 3 similar ingredients: (1) The election results must be declared using CEO Lowenfield’s concocted figures, (2) The PPP rigged the elections using deceased and duplicate votes, (3) The election impasse can be resolved by fresh elections (a persistent call by Vincent Alexander). But the most overpowering ingredient contained in all their ‘analysis’ is really simple: Black people are the rightful rulers of Guyana.
Hinds writes (July 26 KN) ‘…this would be a prolonged process. I arrived at that conclusion based on my study of elections in ethnically divided societies’. Now no one knows which societies he studied but numerous such societies declare election results in a day or two like Suriname did 3 weeks ago. Trinidadians know who the Prime Minister is the next day!
Hinds’ clamor for dialogue is both pathetic and far-fetched. When his Party won in 2015 by 0.3 % he did not see the need for such discourse, today his call is tantamount to a couple coming home to discover a thief leaving their house with his arms full of their bangles and rings. In the ensuing confrontation the thief requests a dialogue to discuss sharing the loot. Here is a pertinent example of perverted reasoning: White says 5+5 =12; Green says 5+5 =10 and Brown jumps in and offers a compromise: 5+5 =11.
The Prussian philosopher Kant (1724-1804) defines reason as a “faculty of principles” or the “faculty of the unity of the rules of understanding under principles”. The problem is how to justify these concepts and principles. This problem is acute because Kant also argues that they often lead us into error and contradiction and into the realms of logic and illusion where duty compels one to flawed reasoning as they have amoral obligation applicable only in pursuit of a predetermined goal. Such thought process was spewed a week ago by one time PNC strongman, 82 years old Hamilton Green, in his declaration to ‘set aside the constitution and disregard the law’ in calling for Granger to swear in. It is quite relevant to ask what did this former Minister of 5 different portfolios, now receiving $M1.5 pension monthly, contribute to his country. And in yet another twist in Guyana’s election circus, former Cuffy Ideological Institute lecturer, PNC cadre, catapulted to Min. of Housing under the PPP gov’t, and now Prime Ministerial candidate for ANUG, joins the call for shared governance. The hop scotch reasoning of Henry Jeffery continues to bewilder.
The narrative perpetuated ad nauseam is GECOM must declare the election results based on the report of its CEO, Lowenfield, regardless of how he arrived at 4 different results. This will give a victory to the Coalition; and exactly what Kant described 200 years ago as the obligation to reason in pursuit of a predetermined goal. Hopefully, with the Court of Appeal ruling good sense and clear judgement will prevail as the PNC led gov’t has ran out of legal options and will finally capitulate If you cheat on a test and get an A does that make you the brightest ? In conclusion, any appeal to the CCJ will be most frivolous and comical as the Apex court would have to negate its own prior rulings!
Leyland Chitlall Roopnaraine