Dear Editor,
If one were to consult a dictionary for an antonym of war, one would likely find the word peace. I disagree. I do so not as an authority on etymology or political theory, because I am not, but as a human being, a rootsman, who begins his analysis with the well-being of the Wretched of the earth, in both absolute and relative terms. From that vantage point, I do not see peace as the opposite of war. I see justice, inclusion, fairness, and respect for all. Where these exist, war finds no fertile ground.
Today, there is an in-vogue ideology of peace through strength. Yet we hear far less, if at all, about peace through fairness, justice, and respect, particularly from the powerful. I can say, without fear of evidential contradiction, that any peace secured through injustice will be hollow and short-lived. Or, to invoke voices of far greater moral register and wisdom, Haile Selassie and Robert Nesta Marley, “until the philosophy that holds one race, [class, sex or set of interests] superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is war.” Such wars are not merely episodic; they are generational and intergenerational. Indeed, a substantial body of scientific research demonstrates that human beings possess a threshold for injustice, beyond which stability erodes, and conflict becomes inevitable.
In this moment of regional disturbance, we do not need to abandon realism, nor must we rinse our souls of fairness, integrity, process, honesty, and decency. We can acknowledge that recent events may represent a necessary reprieve for Guyana; the jury is still out, while simultaneously recognising the profound concerns surrounding the methods used to achieve that reprieve. We cannot credibly claim allegiance to international law, a rules-based geopolitical order, and the UN Charter when we condemn one bully yet rejoice and align ourselves with another simply because we believe it serves our immediate interests. Or because we are afraid.
I write as someone who once embraced idealism and now walks a path toward philosophic pragmatism, which I distinguish from mere strategic pragmatism. The difference is not trivial. The ethos of Philosophic Pragmatism facilitates ideological locatedness without ideological cementation. Philosophic Pragmatism is grounded in principled consistency. It accepts compromise where necessary, but not at the expense of core values. It is attentive to context without surrendering moral coherence, and realistic without becoming cynical.
As a nation, we are confronted with a choice. What kind of people do we wish to be? Are we committed, however imperfectly, to the ideals enshrined in the UN Charter? Or are we prepared to stand with one larger bully to protect ourselves from another? Are we opposed to domination in principle, or only to our own domination? Will we stand not with power for its own sake, but with principles, guided by Philosophic Pragmatism?
I do not claim to have the correct answers. I am not even certain I am asking the right questions. What I am certain of is this: choices have consequences. We therefore owe it to ourselves, as Guyanese and as human beings, to reflect more deeply, more honestly, and more humanistically as we make them.