Guyanese voters must judge their ruling politicians harshly

May 13, 2010 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

I would ask the East Indian voters of the PPP to bear in mind three important political occurrences that have fantastic implication for the future of politics in the US, UK and the Caribbean. When voters examine these phenomena, they must then take a quiet moment in front of the mirror and ask themselves if they are decent, intelligent, human beings that believe in progress and modernization.
If they answer that question in the affirmative they must then act to save the future of Guyana.
The first cataclysmic shift occurred in the US where white folks, conservative citizens and large areas of Hispanic demography voted for an African President. Only one motive was at work when they marked their ballot – the need to save their country. Of all the candidates vying for the American presidency, they thought Barack Obama was the better, more decent, more visionary among the lot.
American politics will never be the same again. Then two days ago, the politically unthinkable occurred in the UK. Two parties with opposing ideologies agreed to form a coalition government.
The Liberal-Democrats and the Conservative Party belong to two different conceptualizations of politics. The Conservatives are a right-wing, pro-business outfit that hardly have anything in common with the liberal and left of centre Liberal-Democrats.
But both leaders agreed to form a coalition government on the basis of one desire only – the future of the UK. Both leaders took the position that Britain was the main consideration, not the ideology of your opponent. In their covenant, the Conservatives agreed to some of the left-wing items on the agenda of the Liberal-Democrats and the Liberal-Democrats have toned down some of their more radical policies.
It is important to note that the leaders of the Liberal-Democrats took the proposal to join the Conservative Party in government to the extended membership of their party and got its endorsement. This is not only democracy on display but it underpins the role of transparency and accountability in politics.
The third historical movement occurred in Trinidad a few weeks ago when the opposition United National Congress (UNC) headed at the time by former Prime Minister Basdeo Panday conceded that party competition for leader must be played out in front of the membership of the UNC.
Basdeo Panday may have become a sullied leader but he never opposed the arrangement of one person, one vote among the UNC constituencies all over Trinidad in choosing its leader.
Panday lost to Mrs. Kamla Bissessar. There were no accusations of rigging. There were no claims of voting or administrative irregularities. Mr. Panday was a towering figure in Trinidad. He founded the UNC and he created history by leading it into power in an outright victory that for decades seemed impossible in Trinidad.
With his historical record, Panday strategized in his mind that the membership would never reject him. Reject him it did. Panday is now history
In Guyana, forms of evil are playing out and evil is indeed an appropriate word when one thinks of how the PPP will go about selecting its main person to become its presidential candidate for the 2011 elections.
The two leadership organs of the PPP are the 30-member body named the Central Committee and the 15-member cabal titled the Executive Committee. So far the chief policy makers of the PPP have not decided which one of these two organs will make the selection.
But the consensus is that the party’s next presidential choice will not follow the pattern of the UNC. The PPP’s membership will not be asked to vote and there will not be a special congress to approve of the 2011 top spot for the party.
When a traditional PPP voter looks at the historical importance of what took place in the US, the UK and Trinidad and juxtapose these fine demonstrations of civilized thinking with the conspiratorial direction in the PPP to identify its presidential candidate through a closed door system, then conscience must come into play.
How can a Guyanese who traditionally votes for the PPP to run this nation accept as their leaders politicians who reject outright the ethical, principled, democratic and civilized method of allowing their top person to be voted for the presidential nomination for the forthcoming national elections by the ballots of party members?
Surely, such a voter must question his/her conscience. But more importantly, he/she must ask the question as to if such leaders are made of good cloth fit to lead Guyana into the future. There can only be one answer. And that is a resounding no.

---

---