Dear Editor,
In a letter to the editor recently published, the author claimed that ‘Cheddi Jagan understood realpolitik.’ The author justified his generalised claim on the ground that Dr. Jagan was ‘someone who understood realpolitik in the context of a changing global dispensation….’
As regards the ‘changing global dispensation’ the author should have provided his take on the nature and direction of the changes in the ‘global dispensation.’ Moreover, since the author seems to be an authority on Dr. Jagan, it would not be unreasonable to ask the author whether Dr. Jagan ‘understood realpolitik’ in the 1960 to 1964 period.
In the letter, there were other implicit suggestions and unwitting generalities unworthy of responding to at this time.
Putting suggestions and generalities aside for the time being, a fundamental question that should be asked is; how did we get to the point where it has become a legitimate question to ask how and why ‘realpolitik’ as a concept and ‘pragmatism’ as a philosophical tradition became of recent, so often cited in respect to Guyana’s body politic?
The answer to this question may be found in a public debate on: ‘logic, relevance and application of realpolitik and pragmatism in today’s world’. Moreover, the fact that the concept and philosophical tradition respectively have begun popping up in everyday political discourse, requires a public debate involving those who hold divergent views in the matter.
Like every outstanding thinker and politician, Dr. Jagan’s ideological and political convictions have always been continues to be vigorously contested, speculative or otherwise. More specifically, given present-day regional and global realities, an open and public discussion on the application and relevance of realpolitik and pragmatism, short of any ambiguity, may result in a deeper understanding of the full meaning and/or interrelationship of the concept and philosophical tradition as a matter of public interest.
Those waving claims and counter claims of ‘predictive knowledge’ about how Cheddi Jagan would have responded specifically to the current crisis obtaining in Cuba, and more generally, to global developments should agree that an open public debate on such matters is the obvious thing to do as part and parcel of a new paragon of openness and to give meaning to ideological pluralism.
Clearly, there is a need to address whatever may be mechanistic, idealistic or speculative in writing about Cheddi Jagan’s legacy. However, at the same time, one should avoid obscurantism and romanticism; instead, one should be scientific and epistemic historically. It is for these reasons that a public debate on the application of realpolitik and pragmatism in the context of Cheddi Jagan’s life work should an open forum for differing agendas and approaches out of which a coherent and agreeable understanding of what would have been Dr. Jagan’s position on Cuba, Russia’s ‘special operation’ in Ukraine and America’s and Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran would be better understood and perhaps help to bring about, at least, an agreement to disagree on ‘predictive knowledge’ on the eve of Dr. Jagan’s 108th birth anniversary.