The WPA’s position has always been nor its leaders are not immune from criticisms

Jan 28, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Peeping Tom’s column on Monday January 18, 2010, which was published under the caption, “No longer by any means necessary”, is one of the better pieces that appeared under that pseudonym I have read in recent times.
The columnist apparently did some limited research and at least, attempted to give the impression of fairness. However, while my initial reading of the article acknowledged some semblance at objectivity, further reading informed me that there are some issues raised by him, which I deem as being mischievous and, as a consequence, I am not prepared to leave them unchallenged.
In the opening paragraph of his column in the issue referred to, Peeping Tom sought to trivialize the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) and the defenders of Walter Rodney.
He wrote, “All you need to do to bring the WPA defenders out of the wood work is to criticise, however slight, Walter Rodney.
The late leader of the WPA has his own intellectual guardians who brook no possibility that he was not fallible”. If the Peeper had really done an in-depth study of the WPA he would have been aware of the fallacy of this argument, which is far removed from the truth.
For the benefit of readers I wish to state unambiguously, that the historic position of the WPA has always been that neither the WPA nor its leaders, dead or alive, are immune from criticisms. It is in that context that the Executive has remained silent in the face of the numerous criticisms, in spite of the internal chastisement from its members that it has failed to defend vigourously the party and Rodney.
While making that position very clear, I wish also to make very clear that the party and its members, wherever they are located, reserve to themselves the right to expose the Annan Boodrams of this world who seek to disregard truth and attempt vainly to rewrite history by their dissemination of vicious, vindictive, spiteful and poisonous garbage which are intended to discredit Walter Rodney and diminish the roles that both Rodney and the WPA played in the anti-dictatorial struggle in Guyana.
If the Peeper is at all suggesting that Boodram’s bile against Walter Rodney and the WPA fall under what he called “slight” criticism then the objectivity of his column is called into question.
I do not share the Peeper’s contention that after the assassination of Rodney there was an immediate “capitulation” by the WPA. At best, this is a misinformed view and at worst, it is a deliberate act of revisionism of history, which this same Peeper alluded to and condemned in the second paragraph of his column.
The Peeper should explain what he meant when he stated that “Peoples Power, after Roopnarine’s funeral oration, took on a different connation”. He has an obligation to expand on this important point and not leave readers to speculate at what he meant.
My next concern surrounds the Peeper’s position that violence has no place in the present political situation in the country. I sincerely hope that he is right in this regard. But I believe that his arguments against the use of violence by Guyanese against the Jagdeo government are intended primarily as deterrents.
I hold firmly to the view that in the present state of affairs in Guyana it will be short sighted for the opposition forces and the masses to contemplate a struggle, which is intended to alter the status quo, taking place successfully through dialogue. This is unlikely given the rise of the drug empire and its power in the state and its relationship to high officials in the government and the ruling party. This new equation has forever changed the political engagement in the country. It is no longer a simple contest of choosing between political parties, as in earlier times.
All of the players in the Guyanese political landscape are fully aware of this new reality and its known negative impact on the country. But some in the political opposition, either out of fear or, and this cannot be disregarded, out of a silent and presumed unknown association with the drug lords and phantom killers, are reluctant to factor it into their public politics.
I hold the view that people should at all times be encouraged to develop their capacity to wage forms of struggle that are necessary to win and secure their freedom.
Their failure to develop this kind of political culture only benefits dictators and would be dictators.
Finally, I believe Peeping Tom is in for a rude awaking.
He will be surprised at the sympathy and support the nation will receive regionally and internationally, if unity is developed and people are forced to resort to the use of violence as the means through which the drug barons and their political allies control of the state will be ended.
Tacuma Ogunseye

---

---