by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 29 July 2007)
First the PNC was upset that some of its own prominent members were talking about the many irregularities within the party. Then those members decided they should try to make a change for the good of the party by presenting the people with an option for a new party leader.
Then the elections were manipulated when thousands of new names appeared on the list from out of nowhere to vote for a party leader. Then the PNC refused to verify those thousands of new persons for those members who brought up the party irregularities in the first place.
Now, the PNC has decided to discipline the aforementioned members for pointing out the irregularities that the entire nation already saw – irregularities that in fact continued to be on open display for the past few weeks. Truly the recent behaviour of the PNC has been some the most injurious conduct to democracy in Guyana that I have seen.
It seems to me that if Robert Corbin started sporting a uniform and carrying a whip, I would not be the least bit surprised at this point. It is truly no wonder that I often hear people say the PNC will never change. If the last few weeks are an example of what Guyana can expect from the PNC, it is a good thing this is a dying party.
At this point, the only thing left for the PNC to do is to rip the vote away from the people all together. If this party is so bent on preventing a healthy democratic atmosphere within its group, why even pretend the vote of the people matters at all?
It would save a lot of money if the PNC just did away with the voting practice all together and quit the pretence that democracy matters in the process of choosing a party leader.
In fact, if the PNC wants to complete this course of action of washing away democracy, it should just bring the newspapers before a disciplinary committee as well, since journalists and columnists are all a part of the democratic process. I just bet they wish they could.
What is so striking in this whole fiasco is just how bold the PNC is being about its dismissal of democracy. It has shown no shame whatsoever in demonstrating its angst toward those who would challenge the party’s leader – as if this mere man is infallible. If anything Corbin has proven to be one of the weakest opposition leaders Guyana has ever produced.
The intolerant approach the party is taking regarding the democratic actions of some of its key members is nothing less than reprehensible. To pretend that it is normal to call for disciplinary action against notable leaders for challenging the party leader does not fool anyone into believing this is a democratic action.
This disciplinary action is being enacted for one very important reason – to make it clear that no one (not even the most senior members) should ever again dare to challenge the party leader. Making a spectacle of these brave few in front of the nation will send that message across Guyana.
What has taken place during this leadership challenge is all the proof Guyana needs that the PNC is not capable of leading a democratic country. In fact, this whole fiasco is making the PPP seem like it does truly does have “ultra-democratic tendencies.” Though we all know this is a laugh, it is a sad observation that Guyana’s primary opposition makes the ruling government appear more given to social equality.
The cloud of speculation that surrounded any national election the PNC ever won has found new validation in the recent actions of the PNC during the past few weeks. Moreover, it is now evident that this practice of refusing to allow democracy to run its rightful course has become an internal exercise as well.
Therefore, it seems necessary to spell it out clearly for the PNC leader to understand – Mr. Corbin, it is undemocratic to censure your challengers. It is undemocratic to manipulate elections. It is undemocratic to intimidate any would-be future contenders for the position of party leader. Guess where that leaves you and your party in a democratic nation?
The entire nation will be watching the actions of the PNC very closely for the next few weeks as this issue of disciplinary action progresses to see if this dying party intends to put the nails in its own coffin or to prove there is at least an ounce of democratic integrity left in those old bones.
My crystal ball has already shown me the outcome.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Stella Says…I have good news and I have bad news
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 27 July 2007)
I have good news for you today; and I have bad news as well. The good news is that India swore in its first female president this week. The bad news is that not many women in India see this event as offering a promising future for them.
Pratibha Patil, India’s new president, has said, “We must banish malnutrition, social evils, infant mortality and female feticide.” These are nice sounding words, so why is it that more women in India do not see Patil as a step in the right direction?
According to a July 25 USA Today report, Madhu Kishwar, editor of Manushi, a feminist and human rights magazine, said, "She was chosen for her loyalty and has moved from one post to another because of that same loyalty.” It would seem that some women in India expect Patil to be more loyal to the government than to them.
Kishwar continued, "I have always believed that it's not everything to just have sari-wearing creatures in politics. It's more important that politics stands for and enables honest, upright people to survive. But sycophancy is the only token that works.”
It is easy to understand Kishwar’s point. Just because a woman is in a position of power, there is no guarantee that she will use that position to help other women. Moreover, one woman in a position of power does not necessarily change the plight of women in general throughout a nation.
Take Guyana for example, this is one nation that has already had a woman as president. Even the US has not had a female president as yet. Moreover, although the position of president in India is largely a ceremonial post, that is not the case here. The president of Guyana is the one who actually leads the country. Yet still even though a woman sat as president nearly a decade ago, the women of this country continue to suffer immensely from all sorts of atrocities because of their gender.
What good does it do the women of a nation if those who achieve positions of power forget what it is like for the rest of her sisters? It is for this reason the women of India are not jumping for joy that they finally have a woman as president – they simply do not expect much from her.
Patil was chosen for this role because of her known devotion to India's powerful Nehru-Gandhi family. It remains to be seen to whom she will be loyal as president of India - to the ones with power or to the powerless?
For example, Patil drew criticism for calling on all women, Hindus and Muslims alike, to abandon the tradition of wearing headscarves. However, upon being sworn in as president this week, Patil herself wore a headscarf. This does not seem to be the type of leader that is strong enough to champion the cause of women in India.
Female feticide is rampant in India despite laws against the practice that aborts a baby girl because families would prefer to have a boy instead. A UK Guardian article from just this week reported, “Police in the eastern Indian state of Orissa exhumed skulls and body parts believed to be from three dozen aborted female foetuses and murdered girls in an abandoned well, a grisly find that highlights the persistence of infanticide in the country.”
This find comes after seven foetuses were found two weeks ago. It is also important to not that women who do not wish to abort their female foetuses often suffer all sorts of abuse from their husbands and his family members.
Male children are deemed more desirable because of the large dowries a young bride’s family must still pay to the husband to placate the burden of caring for the woman for the rest of her life. Sometimes the family must take out large loans to pay the dowry.
Also, only sons can perform last rights for the parents in the Hindu religion. An old proverb shows the general attitude of how girls are viewed by many in India. The proverb says, "Raising a girl is like watering the neighbour's garden."
The question then becomes, what can India’s new female president do – if anything –to help the women of her nation? Can she bridge the gap between the entrenched patriarchy and a life of equality for India’s women? If the scarf she donned during her induction ceremony is any indication of how she waffles under pressure, the answer seems clear.
The Indian government is trying to crack down on female feticide through the doctors who are aborting the female foetuses. Talk of a registry of pregnancy has also been tossed about. So as far as Patil’s statement about ending this practice goes, it seems quite possible.
However, one must ask if the government is now taking such drastic steps simply because the gender ratio is so skewed since so many boys are being born and so many girls are being killed. If this is the case, the way women are viewed in society does not change at all.
Girls will still be deemed a burden on the family, women will still be second-class citizens and female leaders will still be impotent. The focus should not be on stopping the abortion of female foetuses, but on how to change society’s view of women. Once the latter is accomplished, the former will dissipate as well.
China ran into a similar problem when they realised there were not enough women for all of the men after their one-child policy seemed to mean the death of so many little girls to make way for the more desirable little boys. The government started paying some families to have girls to balance the gender ratio again.
However, the practice of female feticide is only a symptom of a much larger social ill – misogyny. A woman in the position of India’s President only guarantees that at least there is not a sexist man in that position, but will Patil’s appointment add up to anything more than a “sari-wearing creature in politics” for the women of her country? Only time will tell.
(Here’s hoping Priya will make a difference for women when she is president of Guyana)
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 27 July 2007)
I have good news for you today; and I have bad news as well. The good news is that India swore in its first female president this week. The bad news is that not many women in India see this event as offering a promising future for them.
Pratibha Patil, India’s new president, has said, “We must banish malnutrition, social evils, infant mortality and female feticide.” These are nice sounding words, so why is it that more women in India do not see Patil as a step in the right direction?
According to a July 25 USA Today report, Madhu Kishwar, editor of Manushi, a feminist and human rights magazine, said, "She was chosen for her loyalty and has moved from one post to another because of that same loyalty.” It would seem that some women in India expect Patil to be more loyal to the government than to them.
Kishwar continued, "I have always believed that it's not everything to just have sari-wearing creatures in politics. It's more important that politics stands for and enables honest, upright people to survive. But sycophancy is the only token that works.”
It is easy to understand Kishwar’s point. Just because a woman is in a position of power, there is no guarantee that she will use that position to help other women. Moreover, one woman in a position of power does not necessarily change the plight of women in general throughout a nation.
Take Guyana for example, this is one nation that has already had a woman as president. Even the US has not had a female president as yet. Moreover, although the position of president in India is largely a ceremonial post, that is not the case here. The president of Guyana is the one who actually leads the country. Yet still even though a woman sat as president nearly a decade ago, the women of this country continue to suffer immensely from all sorts of atrocities because of their gender.
What good does it do the women of a nation if those who achieve positions of power forget what it is like for the rest of her sisters? It is for this reason the women of India are not jumping for joy that they finally have a woman as president – they simply do not expect much from her.
Patil was chosen for this role because of her known devotion to India's powerful Nehru-Gandhi family. It remains to be seen to whom she will be loyal as president of India - to the ones with power or to the powerless?
For example, Patil drew criticism for calling on all women, Hindus and Muslims alike, to abandon the tradition of wearing headscarves. However, upon being sworn in as president this week, Patil herself wore a headscarf. This does not seem to be the type of leader that is strong enough to champion the cause of women in India.
Female feticide is rampant in India despite laws against the practice that aborts a baby girl because families would prefer to have a boy instead. A UK Guardian article from just this week reported, “Police in the eastern Indian state of Orissa exhumed skulls and body parts believed to be from three dozen aborted female foetuses and murdered girls in an abandoned well, a grisly find that highlights the persistence of infanticide in the country.”
This find comes after seven foetuses were found two weeks ago. It is also important to not that women who do not wish to abort their female foetuses often suffer all sorts of abuse from their husbands and his family members.
Male children are deemed more desirable because of the large dowries a young bride’s family must still pay to the husband to placate the burden of caring for the woman for the rest of her life. Sometimes the family must take out large loans to pay the dowry.
Also, only sons can perform last rights for the parents in the Hindu religion. An old proverb shows the general attitude of how girls are viewed by many in India. The proverb says, "Raising a girl is like watering the neighbour's garden."
The question then becomes, what can India’s new female president do – if anything –to help the women of her nation? Can she bridge the gap between the entrenched patriarchy and a life of equality for India’s women? If the scarf she donned during her induction ceremony is any indication of how she waffles under pressure, the answer seems clear.
The Indian government is trying to crack down on female feticide through the doctors who are aborting the female foetuses. Talk of a registry of pregnancy has also been tossed about. So as far as Patil’s statement about ending this practice goes, it seems quite possible.
However, one must ask if the government is now taking such drastic steps simply because the gender ratio is so skewed since so many boys are being born and so many girls are being killed. If this is the case, the way women are viewed in society does not change at all.
Girls will still be deemed a burden on the family, women will still be second-class citizens and female leaders will still be impotent. The focus should not be on stopping the abortion of female foetuses, but on how to change society’s view of women. Once the latter is accomplished, the former will dissipate as well.
China ran into a similar problem when they realised there were not enough women for all of the men after their one-child policy seemed to mean the death of so many little girls to make way for the more desirable little boys. The government started paying some families to have girls to balance the gender ratio again.
However, the practice of female feticide is only a symptom of a much larger social ill – misogyny. A woman in the position of India’s President only guarantees that at least there is not a sexist man in that position, but will Patil’s appointment add up to anything more than a “sari-wearing creature in politics” for the women of her country? Only time will tell.
(Here’s hoping Priya will make a difference for women when she is president of Guyana)
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Stella Says…Making the switch gets rid of the glitch
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 25 July 2007)
I know quite a few political conservative Americans who have made a conscientious switch from being Republican to become a Democrat in the last five years. To understand the gravity of such a move, one would have to know that for some Americans, this is like a PPP supporter becoming a member of the PNC.
I have watched carefully over the past few years as it dawned on the American people that the leader they elected was leading the country to ruin. Moreover, this phenomenon of conservative Americans turning to the Democratic Party for guidance is not occurring in a trickling state, but as a waterfall.
Although this trend has been going on for a few years now, it was last week when I talked to my brother that I realised just how serious this could be for the Republican Party. If someone wanted to know how to define a conservative American, my brother would be the perfect example.
He is a God-fearing man from America’s heartland whose principles line up with that of the Republican Party. Just a few short years ago my brother would rather have eaten dirt than to say Hillary Clinton should be in the White House. Although my brother is very smart, I never gave him credit for being able to see the impact U.S. policy has beyond the shores of America.
While talking on the phone the other day, he made a startling statement to me that caused me to rethink my brother as a person. My brother – the strict conservative Republican - intends to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008 if she gets the nomination.
For someone like my brother to decide to vote for a Democrat (and Hillary at that!) in the next national election means that a new day has truly dawned in the U.S. This means that even the staunchest of Republicans are realising that a great wrong has been done and it is up to the voters to make it right again.
It is one thing for a woman or a loyal Democrat to say that one intends to vote for Hillary Clinton. It is a whole other story for a highly conservative white man from Middle America (like my brother) to declare that he believes Hillary Clinton is the only one who can save our country from the disaster Bush and his administration has created.
I have seen many people make this switch from the Republican Party to be a Democrat. I have seen those in the military make the switch in droves. Even the July 9 issue of Fortune Magazine declared on its front page, “Business Loves Hillary.” In smaller letters below the headline and in parentheses it then said, “Who Knew?”
Indeed, who would have ever thought big business would support a Democrat as a candidate since the Dems are typically known for championing the plight of the poor and middle class. The rich have always despised the Democrat candidates. What a switch!
I made the switch as well, but mine was made early on when it was apparent that Bush intended to start an unprovoked war regardless of what the American people wanted. I was one of those voters looking around in disbelief that such a leader could get voted back into office to cause more harm after the last elections.
Hillary Clinton is just one of the many viable Democratic presidential candidates. There are a handful of potentials to choose from – each just as qualified as the next. My astute brother pointed out to me that it was not worth the time to even browse the poor selection of Republican candidates.
I still cannot seem to fathom that my conservative brother is voting as a Democrat. It would appear that Bush is the best thing that has happened to Democrats in a very long time. During the congressional elections last November, the American people gave the Democrats control of Congress and as a result, this week the poorest of the nation have seen the first rise in minimum wage in ten very long years.
Hillary Clinton’s response to the fact that big business supports her candidacy was that CEOs and other business leaders “know I’m trying to figure out how we can have shared prosperity.” Let me get this straight, Clinton is suggesting shared prosperity and big business is still supporting her?
I am completely convinced that because of Bush, there is nothing the Democratic leaders can do wrong at this point. Morgan Stanely CEO, John Mack, is a long-time Republican who has been won over by Clinton as well. Morgan Stanely is a U.S. multi-billion dollar investment company that has over 55,000 employees.
When conservative Americans, like my brother, and big business CEOs, like John Mack, voice their obvious support for a Democratic presidential candidate, it is clear that the very foundation of American politics is changing.
Although I loathe the way this change has come about – with the lives of so many by way of Bush’s unjustified war in Iraq – it is encouraging to know that people are willing to change even their core belief systems if they recognise a leader intends to use their loyalty for evil purposes.
I am very comforted that my own brother, someone whom I always viewed as immovable when it came to politics and religion, is actually far more open-minded than I could have ever dreamed. I do not even want to think of what this world would be like if people like my brother continued to believe the government’s lies.
It gives me hope to know that so many are willing to change their entire political orientation to do what is right for the nation and for the world.
Now I dare you to take the time to understand how the previous sentence (and the entire column) applies to Guyana. Not that I would suggest that anyone should switch from one evil to another, but to change the very foundation of Guyanese politics to do what is right for the nation.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 25 July 2007)
I know quite a few political conservative Americans who have made a conscientious switch from being Republican to become a Democrat in the last five years. To understand the gravity of such a move, one would have to know that for some Americans, this is like a PPP supporter becoming a member of the PNC.
I have watched carefully over the past few years as it dawned on the American people that the leader they elected was leading the country to ruin. Moreover, this phenomenon of conservative Americans turning to the Democratic Party for guidance is not occurring in a trickling state, but as a waterfall.
Although this trend has been going on for a few years now, it was last week when I talked to my brother that I realised just how serious this could be for the Republican Party. If someone wanted to know how to define a conservative American, my brother would be the perfect example.
He is a God-fearing man from America’s heartland whose principles line up with that of the Republican Party. Just a few short years ago my brother would rather have eaten dirt than to say Hillary Clinton should be in the White House. Although my brother is very smart, I never gave him credit for being able to see the impact U.S. policy has beyond the shores of America.
While talking on the phone the other day, he made a startling statement to me that caused me to rethink my brother as a person. My brother – the strict conservative Republican - intends to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008 if she gets the nomination.
For someone like my brother to decide to vote for a Democrat (and Hillary at that!) in the next national election means that a new day has truly dawned in the U.S. This means that even the staunchest of Republicans are realising that a great wrong has been done and it is up to the voters to make it right again.
It is one thing for a woman or a loyal Democrat to say that one intends to vote for Hillary Clinton. It is a whole other story for a highly conservative white man from Middle America (like my brother) to declare that he believes Hillary Clinton is the only one who can save our country from the disaster Bush and his administration has created.
I have seen many people make this switch from the Republican Party to be a Democrat. I have seen those in the military make the switch in droves. Even the July 9 issue of Fortune Magazine declared on its front page, “Business Loves Hillary.” In smaller letters below the headline and in parentheses it then said, “Who Knew?”
Indeed, who would have ever thought big business would support a Democrat as a candidate since the Dems are typically known for championing the plight of the poor and middle class. The rich have always despised the Democrat candidates. What a switch!
I made the switch as well, but mine was made early on when it was apparent that Bush intended to start an unprovoked war regardless of what the American people wanted. I was one of those voters looking around in disbelief that such a leader could get voted back into office to cause more harm after the last elections.
Hillary Clinton is just one of the many viable Democratic presidential candidates. There are a handful of potentials to choose from – each just as qualified as the next. My astute brother pointed out to me that it was not worth the time to even browse the poor selection of Republican candidates.
I still cannot seem to fathom that my conservative brother is voting as a Democrat. It would appear that Bush is the best thing that has happened to Democrats in a very long time. During the congressional elections last November, the American people gave the Democrats control of Congress and as a result, this week the poorest of the nation have seen the first rise in minimum wage in ten very long years.
Hillary Clinton’s response to the fact that big business supports her candidacy was that CEOs and other business leaders “know I’m trying to figure out how we can have shared prosperity.” Let me get this straight, Clinton is suggesting shared prosperity and big business is still supporting her?
I am completely convinced that because of Bush, there is nothing the Democratic leaders can do wrong at this point. Morgan Stanely CEO, John Mack, is a long-time Republican who has been won over by Clinton as well. Morgan Stanely is a U.S. multi-billion dollar investment company that has over 55,000 employees.
When conservative Americans, like my brother, and big business CEOs, like John Mack, voice their obvious support for a Democratic presidential candidate, it is clear that the very foundation of American politics is changing.
Although I loathe the way this change has come about – with the lives of so many by way of Bush’s unjustified war in Iraq – it is encouraging to know that people are willing to change even their core belief systems if they recognise a leader intends to use their loyalty for evil purposes.
I am very comforted that my own brother, someone whom I always viewed as immovable when it came to politics and religion, is actually far more open-minded than I could have ever dreamed. I do not even want to think of what this world would be like if people like my brother continued to believe the government’s lies.
It gives me hope to know that so many are willing to change their entire political orientation to do what is right for the nation and for the world.
Now I dare you to take the time to understand how the previous sentence (and the entire column) applies to Guyana. Not that I would suggest that anyone should switch from one evil to another, but to change the very foundation of Guyanese politics to do what is right for the nation.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Stella Says…Cheater, Cheater, Pumpkin Eater!
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 22 July 2007)
Remember when as children we would play games and pretend to be a doctor, a fire-fighter or a bride? Our imaginations would run wild with remarkable ideas and most of the time there were no rules to such games. Instead, we would just make up the rules as we went along.
Of course, some children have bigger imaginations than others. I have one daughter who had an imagination as big as the universe and when she played with her neighbourhood friends who also had a huge imagination, they could get lost in a fantasy land of their own making for hours a day.
I would hear their conversations as one would say, “Pretend that a robot is coming to destroy the world.” The other would respond, “Yeah, and pretend the robot is taller than this whole house.” The story would get bigger and bigger and soon their imaginations would have them in a world of make believe.
This is what came to mind as I watched the drama unfold for the PNC over the membership list verification. My first notion was to wonder why it is not standard policy to verify the list each time a vote is required. I suppose there has never – or very seldom – been a need for a verified list of members before.
Yet still, verification of voters should be a standard requisite in any democratic process. As Mr. Corbin well knows. Oh, when I think of the fuss he kicked over verifying the voter list during the national elections last year, and rightfully so. Which is why it is so funny to see him making up his own rules this year.
It is like he is just playing government and making up the rules as he goes along. When my boys would play together as children, one would make up a rule when he wanted to win the game. The other would protest loudly and I would chastise both to play fair. Then the other would turn around and make up his own rule so that he could win the game.
Cheating might help someone win the game, but everyone playing the game knows the person cheated and the win was not real. Therefore, that person does not get our respect for playing a good game or for outwitting us; the person gets our disdain and our pity for not being able to win the game fairly.
When it comes to governing a nation, there should not be any rules made up along the way to suit the purposes of a single individual or a small group of elitists. There should be an established set of regulations in place that ensure the democratic process of voting and governing.
Government is not a board game like Monopoly. Or rather, it would be more appropriate to say Government should not be a game like Monopoly. In government, cheating the process is equal to cheating the people – and the people do not like to be cheated. The people do not want leaders who make up the rules as they go along.
They want the security of knowing an established process is in place from which even the most slippery of leaders cannot deviate. Guyana is still a young nation, but if every election someone is demanding voter verification to prevent cheating – then perhaps this is a policy that should have been installed decades ago.
A simple change of policy would save everyone a lot of grief and prevent the drama of these childish cheating games every time it is time to vote. It should not be so hard for the people of Guyana to vote – and to make sure their vote actually counts for something after their leaders get done cheating.
A good leader would have no problem with verifying a voter list because it is of utmost importance to make sure every voice is heard and that the will of the people is done – even if that means that particular leader must vacate his position.
It is a bad leader who prevents the will of the people by cheating just to win the game. Such a person is not fit for office. The comforting old saying, “Winners never cheat and cheaters never win,” is not always true when it applies to politics. When a leader is allowed to make up rules as she or he goes along, there is a high chance that person will win the game.
Sadly, this is the very last person who should win the game because a cheater lives by his own rules. I have known a few cheaters in my life. These are the types of people you keep at arms length for protection and must constantly look over your shoulder to make sure they are not stabbing you in the back.
This is the point in the story where everyone stands up, points at the cheater and yells, “Cheater, cheater, pumpkin eater”! The world is warned about the cheater.
How can one possibly trust someone who makes the rules up as he goes along? If cheaters want to play games, let them play amongst themselves so the real leaders who truly care about the people can get on with the work at hand.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 22 July 2007)
Remember when as children we would play games and pretend to be a doctor, a fire-fighter or a bride? Our imaginations would run wild with remarkable ideas and most of the time there were no rules to such games. Instead, we would just make up the rules as we went along.
Of course, some children have bigger imaginations than others. I have one daughter who had an imagination as big as the universe and when she played with her neighbourhood friends who also had a huge imagination, they could get lost in a fantasy land of their own making for hours a day.
I would hear their conversations as one would say, “Pretend that a robot is coming to destroy the world.” The other would respond, “Yeah, and pretend the robot is taller than this whole house.” The story would get bigger and bigger and soon their imaginations would have them in a world of make believe.
This is what came to mind as I watched the drama unfold for the PNC over the membership list verification. My first notion was to wonder why it is not standard policy to verify the list each time a vote is required. I suppose there has never – or very seldom – been a need for a verified list of members before.
Yet still, verification of voters should be a standard requisite in any democratic process. As Mr. Corbin well knows. Oh, when I think of the fuss he kicked over verifying the voter list during the national elections last year, and rightfully so. Which is why it is so funny to see him making up his own rules this year.
It is like he is just playing government and making up the rules as he goes along. When my boys would play together as children, one would make up a rule when he wanted to win the game. The other would protest loudly and I would chastise both to play fair. Then the other would turn around and make up his own rule so that he could win the game.
Cheating might help someone win the game, but everyone playing the game knows the person cheated and the win was not real. Therefore, that person does not get our respect for playing a good game or for outwitting us; the person gets our disdain and our pity for not being able to win the game fairly.
When it comes to governing a nation, there should not be any rules made up along the way to suit the purposes of a single individual or a small group of elitists. There should be an established set of regulations in place that ensure the democratic process of voting and governing.
Government is not a board game like Monopoly. Or rather, it would be more appropriate to say Government should not be a game like Monopoly. In government, cheating the process is equal to cheating the people – and the people do not like to be cheated. The people do not want leaders who make up the rules as they go along.
They want the security of knowing an established process is in place from which even the most slippery of leaders cannot deviate. Guyana is still a young nation, but if every election someone is demanding voter verification to prevent cheating – then perhaps this is a policy that should have been installed decades ago.
A simple change of policy would save everyone a lot of grief and prevent the drama of these childish cheating games every time it is time to vote. It should not be so hard for the people of Guyana to vote – and to make sure their vote actually counts for something after their leaders get done cheating.
A good leader would have no problem with verifying a voter list because it is of utmost importance to make sure every voice is heard and that the will of the people is done – even if that means that particular leader must vacate his position.
It is a bad leader who prevents the will of the people by cheating just to win the game. Such a person is not fit for office. The comforting old saying, “Winners never cheat and cheaters never win,” is not always true when it applies to politics. When a leader is allowed to make up rules as she or he goes along, there is a high chance that person will win the game.
Sadly, this is the very last person who should win the game because a cheater lives by his own rules. I have known a few cheaters in my life. These are the types of people you keep at arms length for protection and must constantly look over your shoulder to make sure they are not stabbing you in the back.
This is the point in the story where everyone stands up, points at the cheater and yells, “Cheater, cheater, pumpkin eater”! The world is warned about the cheater.
How can one possibly trust someone who makes the rules up as he goes along? If cheaters want to play games, let them play amongst themselves so the real leaders who truly care about the people can get on with the work at hand.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Friday, July 20, 2007
Stella Says…Praise the catastrophe that destroyed the illusion and put truth in its place
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 20 July 2007)
I simply cannot allow an article on the increase of passion crimes against women slip by without analysis. On Tuesday, this newspaper published an article entitled, “Ten females murdered in six months,” which listed the names of these women who were murdered and how they were killed in crimes of passion.
This information is not a surprise to any of us because it has been addressed several times over the past few months. I suppose when all of the names are listed - when the victims have names to make them real – and we see each name running one right after another, it really hits hard.
It struck me on Tuesday when I read the article that all of these women are gone forever. They are gone from their children, gone from their friends and gone from their communities. The loss of these women is great.
Moreover, the article did not list the number of women who survived being hacked, stabbed and beat during crimes of passion. Some did survive, but their lives will never be the same.
It so happens that I read the information from this article during the same week I picked up a Virginia Woolf book for some light reading. The book I chose is one of her most popular, A Room of One’s Own, which was first published in 1929 – soon after women received the right to vote.
And so it was that as I read about the number of women murdered in crimes of passion for the past six months in Guyana, the information was filtered through the pages of Woolf’s writings on the struggle of the woman to be creative in a patriarchal world that shunned her work.
Of course, the usual questions assailed me as I read about the murdered women in Tuesday’s paper. Why did a woman have to die so a man could feel somehow bigger or better over her small, helpless form? Why must so many of the male gender use physical force to deal with emotional problems?
Will the police find the murderers and collect some tight evidence against them so that at least from the grave these women will know justice? Will the justice system consider the last precious moments of these women’s lives – each filled with terror and pain – before handing out a sentence?
These questions and so many more fill my head as I read about each woman murdered by a man. However, my many questions are usually never met with any real answers because such violence, such sadism, is never reasonable. Instead these questions usually just fester in me, as in so many women, and I continue to hope for a better day for women.
Yet Virginia Woolf offered me some words of comfort as I pondered my questions. It struck me as ironic that she too hoped for a better day for women so many decades ago. Her book reveals the obstacles she faced in her academic pursuits, such as being turned away from a library because she had no male escort.
No man can turn me away from a library, or museum or even a school now. She talked about how just forty years before women were not allowed to own land, manage their own money or run a business – all this must be done by her husband. Today women look after their own financial affairs.
At face value, the lives of women today are far better off than Virginia Woolf’s life. Except that women are still beaten, raped and murdered. Again the questions fill my head. What did Woolf say that helped me to better comprehend these incomprehensible actions?
In remarking about the musings of a particular misogynistic man of her time, she said, “Perhaps when the professor insisted a little too emphatically upon the inferiority of women, he was concerned not with their inferiority, but with his own superiority. That is what he was protecting rather hot-headedly and with too much emphasis, because it was a jewel to him of the rarest price.”
At this I wondered what had changed in the last six months that could cause men to become so hot-headed that they would hack, stab, burn, strangle and shoot women? The statistics show these crimes of passion have been on the rise during the past six months. What has changed that could cause these men to loose it?
Then I remembered some of the stories behind these brutal murders and many of them chronicled a woman who was headed for independence. The man felt spurned or jealous and could not come to terms with the fact that the woman had a mind of her own and a will of her own to do what she wanted with her life.
In general terms, one could come to the conclusion that the air of male superiority is failing in Guyana and there are some men who are not willing to relinquish the notion of being automatically superior to half of the world’s population because he was born with a penis.
In fact, it seems some men are willing to fight for this long-held idea (by beating the women back into submission) and some are even willing to kill for it. It is as if some men blame women for the loss of their superior status when, in fact, all women want is to be removed from their inferior position.
I suppose it would be easy for some to conclude that by shaking their long-held status of inferiority, women do impose themselves on the superior status of men – because it is necessary to raise women up, and subsequently bring men down, in order to assert gender equality.
Again, Virginia Woolf has a fitting passage to address this notion of blame pushing. She said, “But why say ‘blame’? Why, if it was an illusion, not praise the catastrophe, whatever it was, that destroyed illusion and put truth in its place?”
In other words, since male superiority was never real in the first place - it was all an illusion – we should now be glad to finally know the truth, destroy that illusion and put truth in its place.
The answer is not to murder the women who take a stand for their independence. The answer is to begin to work together as a society – both genders side-by-side as equals – to create the best life possible.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 20 July 2007)
I simply cannot allow an article on the increase of passion crimes against women slip by without analysis. On Tuesday, this newspaper published an article entitled, “Ten females murdered in six months,” which listed the names of these women who were murdered and how they were killed in crimes of passion.
This information is not a surprise to any of us because it has been addressed several times over the past few months. I suppose when all of the names are listed - when the victims have names to make them real – and we see each name running one right after another, it really hits hard.
It struck me on Tuesday when I read the article that all of these women are gone forever. They are gone from their children, gone from their friends and gone from their communities. The loss of these women is great.
Moreover, the article did not list the number of women who survived being hacked, stabbed and beat during crimes of passion. Some did survive, but their lives will never be the same.
It so happens that I read the information from this article during the same week I picked up a Virginia Woolf book for some light reading. The book I chose is one of her most popular, A Room of One’s Own, which was first published in 1929 – soon after women received the right to vote.
And so it was that as I read about the number of women murdered in crimes of passion for the past six months in Guyana, the information was filtered through the pages of Woolf’s writings on the struggle of the woman to be creative in a patriarchal world that shunned her work.
Of course, the usual questions assailed me as I read about the murdered women in Tuesday’s paper. Why did a woman have to die so a man could feel somehow bigger or better over her small, helpless form? Why must so many of the male gender use physical force to deal with emotional problems?
Will the police find the murderers and collect some tight evidence against them so that at least from the grave these women will know justice? Will the justice system consider the last precious moments of these women’s lives – each filled with terror and pain – before handing out a sentence?
These questions and so many more fill my head as I read about each woman murdered by a man. However, my many questions are usually never met with any real answers because such violence, such sadism, is never reasonable. Instead these questions usually just fester in me, as in so many women, and I continue to hope for a better day for women.
Yet Virginia Woolf offered me some words of comfort as I pondered my questions. It struck me as ironic that she too hoped for a better day for women so many decades ago. Her book reveals the obstacles she faced in her academic pursuits, such as being turned away from a library because she had no male escort.
No man can turn me away from a library, or museum or even a school now. She talked about how just forty years before women were not allowed to own land, manage their own money or run a business – all this must be done by her husband. Today women look after their own financial affairs.
At face value, the lives of women today are far better off than Virginia Woolf’s life. Except that women are still beaten, raped and murdered. Again the questions fill my head. What did Woolf say that helped me to better comprehend these incomprehensible actions?
In remarking about the musings of a particular misogynistic man of her time, she said, “Perhaps when the professor insisted a little too emphatically upon the inferiority of women, he was concerned not with their inferiority, but with his own superiority. That is what he was protecting rather hot-headedly and with too much emphasis, because it was a jewel to him of the rarest price.”
At this I wondered what had changed in the last six months that could cause men to become so hot-headed that they would hack, stab, burn, strangle and shoot women? The statistics show these crimes of passion have been on the rise during the past six months. What has changed that could cause these men to loose it?
Then I remembered some of the stories behind these brutal murders and many of them chronicled a woman who was headed for independence. The man felt spurned or jealous and could not come to terms with the fact that the woman had a mind of her own and a will of her own to do what she wanted with her life.
In general terms, one could come to the conclusion that the air of male superiority is failing in Guyana and there are some men who are not willing to relinquish the notion of being automatically superior to half of the world’s population because he was born with a penis.
In fact, it seems some men are willing to fight for this long-held idea (by beating the women back into submission) and some are even willing to kill for it. It is as if some men blame women for the loss of their superior status when, in fact, all women want is to be removed from their inferior position.
I suppose it would be easy for some to conclude that by shaking their long-held status of inferiority, women do impose themselves on the superior status of men – because it is necessary to raise women up, and subsequently bring men down, in order to assert gender equality.
Again, Virginia Woolf has a fitting passage to address this notion of blame pushing. She said, “But why say ‘blame’? Why, if it was an illusion, not praise the catastrophe, whatever it was, that destroyed illusion and put truth in its place?”
In other words, since male superiority was never real in the first place - it was all an illusion – we should now be glad to finally know the truth, destroy that illusion and put truth in its place.
The answer is not to murder the women who take a stand for their independence. The answer is to begin to work together as a society – both genders side-by-side as equals – to create the best life possible.
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Stella Says…Who do we blame for the ill-treatment, murder and rape of women?
by Stella Ramsaroop
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 15 July 2007)
Where should the finger point when blame is being distributed for the ill treatment, murder and rape of women? Surely there is someone to hold culpable for such atrocious acts against half of the world’s population.
Do we blame the men who commit these acts? Yes, of course. However, the truth is that they are only acting on what they have been socialised to consider acceptable. True, society does not say that rape and murder are acceptable, but when it promotes the second-class position of women it is a very short trip to a conclusion of rape and murder.
Should we blame hip-hop music, which objectifies women? This week I heard a radio interview with a Georgetown University Professor and author, Michael Eric Dyson, who spoke on this subject. Dyson maintained that hip hop has been extremely seductive in that it promotes the idea that the only place for women, especially black women, in the political economy of sex globally is as a hoochie mama and a slut whose “role is to service the masculine, especially the heterosexual male crotch.”
Hip-hop has certainly colluded with the mentality of female objectification - much like beauty pageants, pornography and girls gone wild videos. However, this music is only a couple decades old and we all know that misogyny has been around for thousands of years.
Perhaps we should blame the legislators for not going to greater lengths to protect women or the law enforcement system for turning a blind eye to women in jeopardy or the judicial system for doling out slaps on the wrists for rapists and wife abusers. Certainly all of these factors play a role in the treatment of women today.
However, all of these factors such as rape, female murder, sexist hip-hop lyrics and videos, pornography, lack of proper legislation to protect women and the obvious indifference from law enforcement and the judicial system, are no more than symptoms of the larger malady that has a very strong hold in so many nations today.
Obviously, there is a greater work in play here that must be recognised for its part in misogynistic socialisation. I have known the answer for quite some time and it seems others are seeing the light as well. The author I mentioned before from an interview this week went on to talk about what he sees as the primary promoter of sexism.
Dyson said he suggested to the “Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton instead of in the aftermath of Imus protesting record companies, how about smashing the sermons of some of those preachers who stand up in church on Sunday mornings in Black America, 75 – 80 percent of those churches are attended by black women, the minister is not calling them the b-word or the h or a skeezer or slut, but he is reinforcing a gospel that subordinates them to the interest of men and therefore he is much more seductive, he’s got a bigger pulpit, he’s got a bigger platform, and he’s got god on his side. Snoop Dog never claimed to be Jesus in rap form, but many of the ministers claim to be god’s representatives on earth and the message from the minister is god wants you to be a second class citizen because men should run stuff.”
Amen!
I know there are times when religion helps people. For example, I have a very good friend who is going through a nasty divorce and is relying on strength from her god more than at any other time in her life to get through this difficult time. I do not discourage her faith because there have been times when I have needed a higher power in my life too.
I would rather see her stand on her own two feet and realise she has the strength to get through this on her own, but she hasn’t the resolve at this point in her life. So she turns to religion and finds comfort and strength in her faith.
What she does not realise is it is that same religion that gave her husband the right to think he could do anything he wanted to do regardless of her feelings or his responsibilities. In short, this religion to which she now clings is actually the very instigator of her problems.
Her husband maintains that men work, that’s what they do and justifies his excessive travel away from the family, which leaves all of the house duties and child rearing to the woman. If this is what the husband wants, religion teaches that it is acceptable and if the wife protests then she should be taken in hand.
The wife is reduced to nothing more than a slave, and she had better be a submissive slave or she will pay for her rebellion. God forbid that she protest anything, which is what my friend did and now finds herself in a divorce – something she never dreamed would happen to her.
The fact is that women are just as capable of working outside of the home and there are many who would rather have a career than to clean, cook and care for others their whole life. At this transitional point in history, far too many women do both – careers and home – with little help or support from their husbands.
As long as women are subordinated to the interests of men by the same higher power to whom they run for strength to deal with the intolerable situation created by that higher power, they will never find an end to their suffering. This is a never-ending circle of sexism.
It is time for women to realise they have the strength to rise above the sexist socialisation that is instilled in us from the cradle and incessantly reinforced via multiple conduits all around us for our entire lives. Could it be that this is where blame should be laid for the ill treatment, rape and murder of women – at the doors of our places of worship?
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
(Originally published in Guyana's Kaieteur News on 15 July 2007)
Where should the finger point when blame is being distributed for the ill treatment, murder and rape of women? Surely there is someone to hold culpable for such atrocious acts against half of the world’s population.
Do we blame the men who commit these acts? Yes, of course. However, the truth is that they are only acting on what they have been socialised to consider acceptable. True, society does not say that rape and murder are acceptable, but when it promotes the second-class position of women it is a very short trip to a conclusion of rape and murder.
Should we blame hip-hop music, which objectifies women? This week I heard a radio interview with a Georgetown University Professor and author, Michael Eric Dyson, who spoke on this subject. Dyson maintained that hip hop has been extremely seductive in that it promotes the idea that the only place for women, especially black women, in the political economy of sex globally is as a hoochie mama and a slut whose “role is to service the masculine, especially the heterosexual male crotch.”
Hip-hop has certainly colluded with the mentality of female objectification - much like beauty pageants, pornography and girls gone wild videos. However, this music is only a couple decades old and we all know that misogyny has been around for thousands of years.
Perhaps we should blame the legislators for not going to greater lengths to protect women or the law enforcement system for turning a blind eye to women in jeopardy or the judicial system for doling out slaps on the wrists for rapists and wife abusers. Certainly all of these factors play a role in the treatment of women today.
However, all of these factors such as rape, female murder, sexist hip-hop lyrics and videos, pornography, lack of proper legislation to protect women and the obvious indifference from law enforcement and the judicial system, are no more than symptoms of the larger malady that has a very strong hold in so many nations today.
Obviously, there is a greater work in play here that must be recognised for its part in misogynistic socialisation. I have known the answer for quite some time and it seems others are seeing the light as well. The author I mentioned before from an interview this week went on to talk about what he sees as the primary promoter of sexism.
Dyson said he suggested to the “Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton instead of in the aftermath of Imus protesting record companies, how about smashing the sermons of some of those preachers who stand up in church on Sunday mornings in Black America, 75 – 80 percent of those churches are attended by black women, the minister is not calling them the b-word or the h or a skeezer or slut, but he is reinforcing a gospel that subordinates them to the interest of men and therefore he is much more seductive, he’s got a bigger pulpit, he’s got a bigger platform, and he’s got god on his side. Snoop Dog never claimed to be Jesus in rap form, but many of the ministers claim to be god’s representatives on earth and the message from the minister is god wants you to be a second class citizen because men should run stuff.”
Amen!
I know there are times when religion helps people. For example, I have a very good friend who is going through a nasty divorce and is relying on strength from her god more than at any other time in her life to get through this difficult time. I do not discourage her faith because there have been times when I have needed a higher power in my life too.
I would rather see her stand on her own two feet and realise she has the strength to get through this on her own, but she hasn’t the resolve at this point in her life. So she turns to religion and finds comfort and strength in her faith.
What she does not realise is it is that same religion that gave her husband the right to think he could do anything he wanted to do regardless of her feelings or his responsibilities. In short, this religion to which she now clings is actually the very instigator of her problems.
Her husband maintains that men work, that’s what they do and justifies his excessive travel away from the family, which leaves all of the house duties and child rearing to the woman. If this is what the husband wants, religion teaches that it is acceptable and if the wife protests then she should be taken in hand.
The wife is reduced to nothing more than a slave, and she had better be a submissive slave or she will pay for her rebellion. God forbid that she protest anything, which is what my friend did and now finds herself in a divorce – something she never dreamed would happen to her.
The fact is that women are just as capable of working outside of the home and there are many who would rather have a career than to clean, cook and care for others their whole life. At this transitional point in history, far too many women do both – careers and home – with little help or support from their husbands.
As long as women are subordinated to the interests of men by the same higher power to whom they run for strength to deal with the intolerable situation created by that higher power, they will never find an end to their suffering. This is a never-ending circle of sexism.
It is time for women to realise they have the strength to rise above the sexist socialisation that is instilled in us from the cradle and incessantly reinforced via multiple conduits all around us for our entire lives. Could it be that this is where blame should be laid for the ill treatment, rape and murder of women – at the doors of our places of worship?
Email: StellaSays[at]gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)