Latest update February 17th, 2025 9:42 PM
Dec 29, 2009 Letters
Dear Editor,
I wish to offer some comments on Dr. Misir’s letter of December 21 in response to mine of December 12.
I know that Dr. Misir is a man of many talents and that he wears many hats (or is it caps). I was however surprised when he manifested the capacity to divine what I believe – the creation of “some paradigm shift…machinations”.
Is this a newly acquired talent? Misir is on slippery ground when he describes my concern over his use of the word “perceived” as “undue”; nor is the issue irrelevant as he asserts.
I would like Misir to know that many persons shared my concern. His stand is nothing but a cop out. Further, I cannot understand how Misir can characterise the invitation as a charade.
It is a matter of historical record that Guyana’s three political leaders signed a letter asking the British Government “to settle on their authority all outstanding constitutional issues” including the electoral system.
Is Misir unaware of this? Among relevant documents the learned Doctor may wish to consult Mr. Hamilton Green’s letter which appeared in Kaieteur News of December 19. Misir can therefore fret and fume as much as he likes.
It does not alter the fact that our leaders invited the British to decide on the electoral system. Incidentally I am not aware of any of those leaders explaining to the Guyanese people the reasons for their signature of the letter.
Turning to the question of official action in the aftermath of the 1964 elections, an Order-in-Council (a constitutional amendment?) was approved in London for the purpose of terminating the appointment of Dr. Jagan as Premier since he refused to resign as such after it was clear that Mr. Burnham had the support of the majority in the Legislature.
Misir states that the focus of his piece of December 7 was “to show the British and American grand designs for Guyana”. Any reasonably informed person was aware of US foreign policy objectives at that time. But were our political leaders always hapless victims?
Why did they for example invite the British Government to settle certain issues instead of themselves reaching agreement on them?
My reason for responding to Misir’s piece of December 7 was twofold. Firstly, I believe that inexactitudes should be avoided. Secondly, in my view sufficient attention has not been given to what may be called domestic factors, including deficits in Guyana’s political leadership, in analyses of the Guyana saga.
Take the issue of the electoral system for example. In late 1958 and early 1960 the PNC recommended that elections should be on the basis of proportional representation.
After the 1961 elections the PNC at its Congress in November that year adopted a motion supporting a system of proportional representation – see pages 14 and 15 of A Destiny to Mould, which contains the above information and the reasons for support for PR.
To the best of my knowledge the employ of “domestic factors” such as the foregoing has not been much in evidence in analyses.
It is a lacuna which needs to be recognised and filled. Can the University of Guyana play a role?
Rashleigh E. Jackson
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]