The Voice of Dissent - A true mark of democracy

The health of any democratic state can be measured by the degree to which its citizens feel free to voice their dissent against the government without fear of punishment or reprisal. Guarantees of free speech, free press and free assembly mean absolutely nothing if the people live in fear of retaliation should they choose to speak their minds regarding their politicians.

Oppression comes in many shapes and sizes. It hides its evil motives in the pretences of supposed honourable acts all the while bullying the naysayer into silent submission with unspoken threats of retribution. However, let there be no doubt whatsoever that democracy requires, no demands, dissent.

Free political discussion and the right to disagree with those in political power are the cornerstone of a free country. Without the right to dissent there is no way for the people to unite in thought and purpose regarding the process that decides their lives and futures. When the people are free to discuss their feelings about the government, they have at their disposal the first platform necessary to accept or reject the government and even, if desired, replace the government.

Truly, a responsive government is simply a natural by-product of citizens who do not fear reprisal from disagreeing with their politicians. The will of the people should be the foremost concern of the government and when that will is ignored or denied, the people have a responsibility to voice their dissent and to expect changes in a timely manner.

Any element that creates a political climate that produces a fear in the people to speak their minds is anti-democratic and dictatorial. There are so many avenues by which a government can create such a climate. Some methods are more drastic than others, but the end result is always the same – silencing the voice of the people.

The more aggressive and less apologetic oppressive governments usually choose very public methods to make examples of one dissenter in an effort to curb the disapproving appetite in other would-be dissidents. These methods usually include such atrocities as shutting down a newspaper that has printed dissenting material, sending harassing messages via the media to warn its enemies and even murdering anyone who opposes the government. We have seen this type of behaviour in our dear Guyana 25 years ago when Dr. Walter Rodney was killed for voicing his dissent of the then administration.

Other less public, yet often just as sinister, methods include social ostracization, yanking of government contracts from businesses ran by political dissenters and, here in Guyana, total disregard for dissent originating from the race that is not in power. Disregarding the views of the “other” race is certainly one highly efficient technique to summarily dismiss a large amount of dissent while further perpetuating the racial division in our country - a division instigated and sustained by vitriolic politicians who would chip away at our democracy for a chance to sit in parliament.

So what is Guyana’s democratic temperature? To what degree do the citizens feel the freedom to voice their dissent? Happening upon a conversation here or there will show there is much political condemnation and the people will talk about it with their friends and acquaintances. However, there is also a noticeable undercurrent of fear that runs deep into the veins of the citizens. Whispers of dissatisfaction and low condemning murmurs consistently fill the streets, doorways and rum shops of our country and fear reigns in the place of freedom.

Perhaps this fear is a result of dreadful memories of what can happen when good men and women like Dr. Rodney speak their minds. Or maybe the fear stems from the idea that we may have a government that hires hit men to take care of its “problems.” Then again, it could be because we own a business that relies on contracts from the government and cannot afford to risk the loss of revenue in exchange for dissenting words. Sadly, the root of this underlying fear is probably all of the above – and more.

True, our newspapers are not being shut down like the papers in Iran were this past week for printing a dissenting letter. However, any element in our society that prevents dissent is a serious threat to our freedom. Even more, a society that does not actively facilitate opportunities for dissent is no patron of democracy. A country is not democratic simply because its constitution declares it to be so. There are innate principles that are foundational in the classification of being democratic – one of which is facilitation for the voice of dissent.

How does a country facilitate dissent? In today’s modern world, we have so many new avenues available for free discussion. There are Websites with forums formatted specifically for political discussion. There is also the radio, television and newspapers as a means for expressing dissent. Other avenues include providing town meetings, encouraging the formation of political activist groups and, if a situation requires drastic measures, a petition.

However, the most effectual means by which a country can facilitate dissent is to replace every unresponsive politician with one who better understands the role of a democratic leader. It really is that simple. Such politicians are not fit for the service of the people and should have no place in making decisions that impact the people if they cannot listen to the will of the people.

Further, any politician found to be making threats, even in the slightest degree, that would hamper a healthy climate of dissent, should also be replaced without delay. These leaders seek their own interest and power. They are dangerous and should not be trusted with the honour of running our country since most times this type of person will only run it into the ground and then blame it on someone else.

Beyond doubt, it is extremely difficult to overcome a fear of political reprisal when there is even a small nagging that one’s opposition might bring retribution to family, business or self. However, if the people of Guyana do not take the necessary steps to restore a healthy climate of free discussion to our country, then who will? Quite frankly my fellow compatriots, there is no one else.

With the same mouths we use to kiss our children and eat the sweet fruit of our land, we should be demanding the will of the people and declaring the freedom for political discussion. It is time to exchange our whispers for bellows and our doorways for podiums. I ask for a second time, if not us, then who? Once again, Guyana expectantly awaits your reply.