Latest update February 17th, 2025 1:24 PM
Sep 10, 2012 Letters
Dear Editor,
I am replying to Mr. Wesley Kirton’s letter (KN Sep 7) in which he essentially claims that the PNC did not rig elections to discredit my (verified) contention that the PNC government was illegal (between 1968 and 1992). With his “pronouncement on election rigging was not true” and “PNC rule not illegal”, Kirton exposes his bias as a former journalist and diplomat. No self respected individual (not even PNC officials) would deny that the PNC rigged elections to hold on to power. No diplomat with any moral scruple would seek to defend a regime that was not properly elected. No one with integrity would shower lavish praises on bureaucrats and security personnel for facilitating rigging and oppressing a people.
It is also a known fact that the PNC ruled with fear, backed by brute force and people were denied basic rights and freedoms (press, some religion rights, political association, etc.) thereby making the PNC a dictatorship in violation of the country’s fundamental laws and therefore illegal.
It is a known fact that the PNC rigged all elections in Guyana when it ran the government and that in and of itself made it an illegal regime. All credible literature (tons of them) points to the PNC as an illegal and illegitimate regime. I and others used “illegal” to describe the regime because it was not elected according to the spirit of the law. Some writers use “illegitimate” to mean the same thing – in law and in international relations “legitimacy” is distinguished from “legality”. But in general, if a Government is deemed illegitimate, it can be also be described as illegal in discussions about it, even though it was never deemed illegal by courts(and by the way which court would have rendered the PNC illegal and the elections not rigged?). Writers use the two terms interchangeably though they may not have the same meaning. The usage does not matter in Kirton’s world because he saw the PNC regime as “legal and “legitimate” – because for him the regime was duly constituted, internationally recognized and courts did not rule against it. People accepted the government because guns were directed at them and those who opposed the regime were dealt with through violence.
Kirton should read the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes and German philosopher Max Weber on legitimacy and law. I studied international relations, international law, and diplomacy in graduate school and as such am familiar with the literature on the subject. Kirton is wrong and he shows a naïve understanding of international relations among nations as well as the tenets of law. Diplomatic norms allow for the acceptance and recognition of government even if they are not legal. Burnham and Hoyte were recognized as the rulers of Guyana but they were not legally elected. What is legitimate (accepted by the nation and recognized by foreign governments) may not be legal and vice versa. Not because foreign governments recognized a regime means the regime was “legal”. Foreign governments (US, Canada, England, etc.) worked with brutal fascist oppressive regimes because of practical politics. Yes, such recognition provided legitimacy to the regimes but morally and ethically speaking and even according to the laws of many of those countries, the regimes were “illegal”. Kirton ought to know that the US worked with dictators and unelected rulers but was never comfortable with them and never defended them (Burnham, Hoyte, Pinochet, Shah Pahlavi, Somoza, Duvalier, etc.). Defending an illegal regime (dictatorship) is reprehensible and that is exactly what Kirton did in his letter (KN Sep 7). Many dictators such as the Shah, Hoyte, Zia Ul Haq (Pakistan), Pinochet, etc. visited the White House (some several times) but it does not mean they were “legally” elected.
The US recognized and accepted Burnham and Hoyte (and other dictators) to keep out the communists. After communism collapsed, the US was not willing to do business with Hoyte and issued warnings to him about rigging future elections – eventually leading to the end of illegal rule in October 1992 when free and fair election was restored.
With regards to his contention that my analysis of US election was flawed (KN Sep 1), Kirton is wrong. The information for my analysis is very accurate and reliable, the analysis sound and the conclusion logically derived. Kirton could not offer any evidence to dispute any of my statements except with “I know”. I penned “I don’t think an Obama victory can be ruled out” in response to an economic and social model that predicts Obama will go down to a landslide defeat. Kirton, who claims to be a Republican, responded “an Obama defeat cannot be ruled out”. Where is the evidence to support this ambivalent, paradoxical, mishy mashy conclusion? It is arrogantly based on “I know” instead of saying it is based on polls or some other evidence.
Kirton made reference to my polling (that has no relevance to the issue under discussion). I wonder what journalism school teaches that kind of logic). Mr. Freddie Kissoon made an allegation that I conducted “bogus” polls. I repeatedly asked him to submit evidence to support his claim and I will fund his costs to conduct an annual poll as well as cease and desist from conducting polls and writing in the papers. Freddie has failed to respond. I now make the same challenge to Kirton. If Kirton provides evidence that the polls I conducted are “bogus” I shall pay costs to conduct an annual poll in Guyana and cease and desist from polling as well as writing in the papers! Furthermore, if Kirton provides irrefutable evidence that the PNC never rigged elections in Guyana, including its own internal election last year and again in July, I will instantly stop all my writing and polling in Guyana.
Vishnu Bisram
Feb 17, 2025
2025 West Indies Championship… Kaieteur Sports – Guyana Harpy Eagles (GHE) sits at the top of the points table ahead of the fourth round of the 2025 West Indies Championship. After three...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- I have an uncle, Morty Finkelstein, who has the peculiar habit of remembering things with... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Ambassador to the US and the OAS, Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News-Two Executive Orders issued by U.S.... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]