You cannot vie for the country’s top job without putting in the requisite time and energies

Jul 24, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Political parties are there to establish governments. If we are talking politics and running political elections they are usually run by political parties.
The political parties therefore cannot, and must not, relinquish their role to civil society since this is not civil society’s leading role, unless those who represent this society are organised to pose a threat to the political force by having a grassroots mass movement.
If this is not so let civil society, if they want to play a role, play one as supportive not as the principal leader.
To also entertain and propagate the thought that no current politician is qualified to lead the opposition group into the next election is an affront to members of the political parties, who over the years have voted for their leaders.
Those seeking to change this and acquire political power should first enter into politics and have the membership elect them as leaders. It is immoral to sit on the political sidelines and allow political parties and their members to do the spade work, then, when it is completed to stride in and say that you have what it takes to lead and expect that leadership be given to you.
You cannot vie for the country’s top job without putting in the requisite time and energies.
For those who are saying the PNCR, as the major opposition, should not field a candidate to lead the coalition, is taking for granted the goodwill of the PNCR and its members/supporters.
With the largest bloc of votes in any coalition, the PNC has a right to play a leading role in who should or should not be the presidential candidate.
Further, were efforts at coalition genuinely based on the oft repeated appreciation for the model of Trinidad, Suriname and Britain it would be seen that the major party was the one that led the coalition. That aggregate was established on this basic principle and respect.
The much bandied about recommendations and seeming national acceptance that the racial identity of the presidential candidate is the major qualifying condition if a party wants to win and as such an Indian should lead the opposition or any coalition is in itself perpetuating and giving legitimacy to the daily practice of racial discrimination.
A candidate should come to the voters based on his ability, regardless of his race.
Sasenarine Singh (SN, 18/6/2010) having noted what he called the “more political maturity” of Africans in voting for other parties and having compared it with Indians who he said is less politically matured and remain wedded to the PPP for fear of having another African leader govern Guyana misguidedly use this to continue the discrimination in making the pitch for an Indian leader.
The recognition of Singh, et al, of the racial political loyalty of a group that poses a hindrance to removing the corrupt PPP, means that there is work to be done to bring the society to a stage where wrong is wrong regardless of race, and to know that the resources of the state belong to all the people and that government must be held accountable by all people.
To know too that refusing to punish wrongs based on racial identity and the seeming complicity to such wrong under the guise of political immaturity is also wrong. Such behaviours should be exposed and publicly condemned, not dismissed or justified.
From Singh’s recount of the bottom house campaigns they reveal the sad effects of the propagation of myths, half-truths and wedded loyalty to the detriment of society.
What Singh and others don’t want to say, or to do is make known what have been or will be their role to stop the entrenchment of this type of bottom house racism. For it is evident that it is suffocating the taxpaying public when all should be treated fairly and not robbed of their opportunities and tax dollars as the result of blind racial affinity.
In progressive societies governments are held accountable to the rule of law. There are also rules of social engagement with government, political parties and civil society that strive more for facts as against myths. Persons are also allowed to participate in the political association via governance structures that encourage a universal code of conduct and support practices of equality and accountability. People in these societies see it as a moral responsibility which they take very seriously. Hence you would see in a majority white dominated society a white person calling out/exposing a fellow white for his racism without fear of victimization. Minorities are given opportunities because these nations take proactive measures to ensure that they too get an equal shot.
The elections of African Barack Obama, Indian Bobby Jindal as Governor, Louisiana USA, African Baroness Valarie Amos in the UK, to name a few, are testimonies to these. Singh and others who are using the media to spread their racial presidential identity message, most of them reside in progressive societies and are the daily beneficiaries of the civic structures, responsibility and decency that allow them to thrive in spite of their racial identity. It is therefore befitting for them, assuming they genuinely care, to advocate for the same at home so that minorities in Guyana can have the same opportunities they enjoy as minorities in the societies they now reside.
As Guyanese we too should strive to get it right, starting now.
M. A. Bacchus

---

---