There was a signing bonus. It was known but denied by several Ministers of the Government. There should be consequences but the precedent has long been established that ministerial responsibilities are not recognized and therefore consequences do not flow from their actions or omissions. Unless there is a mass upsurge, which is unlikely, this uniquely unjustifiable deed will continue to be defended, as it was in or just out of the National Assembly. There is no excuse for the secrecy and any attempt to defend it is an insult to the Guyanese people. Transparency International called it “deception.”
In Guyana, politics is a zero-sum game. Rules of transparency and accountability are weak and where they exist are not enforced. No conventions have not been established or are entrenched. The prevailing wisdom, therefore, is to give the Opposition and the Guyanese people as little as possible, and where possible, nothing. This is the national, political culture derived from its core defect, the politics of ethno-political domination, which implies that the other side are their supporters are enemies and not to be trusted – with anything. It’s us and them, sometimes, us or them. And the people are the pawns. This is the reason why the APNU-AFC coalition, when in opposition, could have been so strident in defence of transparency and accountability, and can now so blithely dismiss such concepts with contempt.
The Russian Revolution, referred to as the ‘Great October Socialist Revolution,’ took place one hundred years ago on November 7 (October 25 on the calendar in force in Russia at the time). Although the revolution was inspired by noble ideas and ideals, mainly the elimination of exploitation and poverty and the creation of a party to represent the interests of the working class to do so, it did not survive the 20th century. China and Vietnam claim to be building ‘socialism’ with their own characteristics, while establishing capitalist economies. Once ‘progressive’ developing countries have all been ensnared by globalization and neoliberalism.
The ideas of colonial liberation were given a substantial impetus by the Russian Revolution. The defeat of fascism in 1945, the Independence of India in 1947 and the liberation of China in 1949 set the stage for the dismantling of the remainder of the British Empire. These were the major events that inspired the leaders of liberation movements all over the world, including Guyana. Along the way many of them absorbed the ideas of Marx, the theorist, and Lenin, the practitioner.
Very little debate has taken place on the Petroleum Commission of Guyana Bill. It is to the credit of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce to have initiated a public discourse on the legislation around the country, albeit late in the day. The lead speaker has been former Energy Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Kevin Ramnarine, who has tremendous expertise in many aspects of the oil industry and who has visited Guyana several times sharing his knowledge. He was ably assisted by Mr. Deodat Indar, the president of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce, which has been invigorated in recent years by many young business leaders who are dedicated to its agenda of promoting business and commerce.
The business community is deeply interested in the Bill because it seeks to establish the institutions that will oversee the oil industry and to define the rules which would guide their functions and duties. Since it is likely that when passed, the Bill will impact the business community by providing opportunities for its growth and development for decades in the future, it is vital that not only business, but the people of Guyana, take an interest in what is being proposed to maximize the potential for Guyana.
Membership of our two main political parties does not necessarily imply that one is a racist or subscribes to an ethnic approach to politics. The leaderships of both parties seriously strive, largely unsuccessfully, to broaden the leadership and membership of their parties. That they have not been successful has not modified their efforts. In the past when there was a clearer ideological distinction between the parties, it was even easier to justify the assertion that motivations for political activism were not ethnic, at least overtly. But supporters are recalcitrant.
While no leader would tolerate ethnic slurs made by their supporters, they are always conscious of the fact that unacceptable language or characterizations in referring to another ethnic group is a common feature of Guyanese life and their supporters might falter. Strong measures should always be taken against such behavior. When Bill Maher, the white US TV host/comedian, liberal and strongly anti-racist, who donated US$1 million to Obama’s election campaign, recently said light-heartedly while interviewing someone that he should not be considered a ‘house n***’, there was a national outcry. He barely kept his job and had to apologise and publicly atone. One of his guests in his next show, the African American actor and rapper, Ice Cube, said that when that word is used in any context, except by African Americans who are now the owners of the word, and presumably are permitted to use it, ‘it’s like a knife.’ Words of racist abuse feel the same way to every race and they do reflect a ‘personal philosophy.’
Alexandra Kollontai (1872-1952) was a leading Bolshevik and the earliest champion of women’s rights under the new Soviet government. From an aristocratic background, she was attracted to left wing ideas as a student and in 1899 joined the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, under which name the communists were first organized. Kollontai devoted her energies, in exile and in Russia, to develop strategies for the organization and education of women and their involvement in the struggle against tsarism and capitalism, in unity with and as an equal partner of men. She also sought to liberate women’s sexuality as part of the liberation of women in general and promoted ideas that may appear to be quite acceptable now but which were somewhat advanced for the immediate post-feudal era in Russia (‘sexuality is a human instinct as natural as hunger or thirst’). Although Kollontai encountered much resistance by her male comrades, she nevertheless persisted and earned the support by Lenin. While she was eventually banished to a diplomatic post because of her factional struggle against bureaucracy as a member of ‘The Workers Opposition,’ her ideas heavily influenced the Soviet agenda on women and family issues. It is believed that one of the reasons that she survived the Stalin purges was because of her popularity.
In an article, ‘Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism’ in the New York Times of August 12, by Kirsten R. Ghodsee, a Professor of Russian and East European studies at the University of Pennsylvania, recognition was given to the role of Alexandra Kollontai. The writer said: “After the Bolshevik takeover Vladimir Lenin and Alexandra Kollontai enabled a sexual revolution in the early years of the Soviet Union with Kollontai arguing that love should be freed from economic considerations.” The ideological foundation for women’s equality had been laid by earlier writers such as August Bebel and Frederic Engels. Thus, suffrage was extended to women in 1917, immediately after the revolution and three years before the US. This was followed by the liberalization of divorce laws and freedom being given to women over reproductive rights. Unwanted pregnancies were reduced by extensive sex education.