Is the PPP hierarchy split between those supportive of the status quo and those against it?

Jul 27, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The state-run Guyana Chronicle engaged in space-filling by producing a non-story captioned, “AFC leadership crisis persists,” (GC, July 26), but saner minds know that there is a huge difference between a crisis and a challenge, and that wise leaders know how to turn even crises into challenges.
The AFC is no different from the PPP or the PNC in terms of internal challenges, but crises? Well, that depends on what constitutes crises in each organisation.
From my vantage point, though, I can see an emerging battle inside the PPP for the presidency now that House Speaker, Mr. Ralph Ramkarran, has broken with party tradition and gone public with his bid for the presidency by openly talking up extremely troubling issues. I don’t know if it is crisis sign, but I am confident it is a challenge, and could quickly become defined as a crisis if it gets out of hand.
Let me set the background by saying, in the last three elections, (’97, ’01, and ’06), the PPP’s trump card for ensuring its numerical majority base of Indians voted overwhelmingly for it, was the PNC.
This ‘bogey man’ was used to strike fear and insecurity in the hearts of Indians who then rushed out to vote against the PNC by voting for the PPP. But this is July 2010 and the PNC has long ceased being a fear factor amongst Indians.
Even PNC Leader, Mr. Robert Corbin, has helped ameliorate fears among Indians when said he won’t be his party’s presidential candidate. So what exactly will be the PPP’s selling point if elections are held as scheduled in 2011? In fact, if there is a new candidate, will s/he be running on the Jagdeo regime’s overall or partial record of the last 11 years?
I have read enumerated accounts of the government’s achievements written by Dr. Prem Misir and Mr. Ramkarran, and while these may be used to commend the PPP to the electorate for another term in office, they really betray or mask a more sinister and sickening side of the PPP that must be methodically exposed before Guyana finds itself being ruled politically and economically by a select few in the name of the PPP via favours and force.
This discovery was made possible when Mr. Ramkarran deviated from the PPP’s tradition of selecting its presidential candidate in absolute secrecy and went public with his ambition by listing corruption, transparency and unity as key areas to be tackled if he gets nominated and elected.
Why would he list corruption and transparency if these are not real-time problems in the current government?
And why would he go public with this rather than seek to address them secretly in the party as part of his bid for the candidacy?
I believe Mr. Ramkarran, like many observant Guyanese at home and abroad, has detected that the corruption and transparency issues he mentioned are not confined to middle and low-level government operatives, but transcend all levels, and that the ideal way to correct these anomalies is to start with the presidency. The problem here, however, is that Mr. Ramkarran going public may actually be reflective of a split in the PPP hierarchy between those who want to maintain the status quo (the way government is doing business) and those who want to change the status quo (change the way government is doing business).
There is a school of thought among some Guyanese that among those who want to maintain the status quo is President Bharrat Jagdeo, and so if the third term idea fizzles and he has to demit office, he will favour PPP General Secretary, Mr. Donald Ramotar, whose silence – unlike Mr. Ramkarran’s public agitations – is seen as a sign he will not rock the boat or change the Jagdeo agenda.
The same school of thought holds the view that Mr. Ramkarran is seen as ready and willing to make drastic changes. Both sides, ironically, has its own set of supporters inside the PPP.
Unfortunately for Mr. Ramkarran, though, while he is House Speaker, he does not have control of or access to government resources like the President, nor is he in direct control of the PPP, which places him at a great disadvantage to the President who is in the driver’s seat and can make offers and deals right now with just about anybody, including the PPP General Secretary, that the Speaker can’t. Matter of fact, someone asked me some time back whether I thought when the President took the General Secretary on a Middle East trip a few months ago that a deal was struck then for the General Secretary to take over in 2011, and I said it was too soon to tell.
At this juncture, however, I would have to say that if my foregoing observations are indisputable and irrefutable, then Mr. Ramkarran has his work cut out if he really wants to become Guyana’s next President, and his only hope right now is that, compared to Mr. Ramotar, he has more key PPP supporters who want to see drastic changes rather than a continuation of the status quo.
This may well come down to the fight of Mr. Ramkarran’s entire political life. But personally, based on President Jagdeo’s high profile agenda of non-transparent deals and secret pipeline plans, I don’t think that if he is going to demit office without a fight if he believes major changes or even investigations of his government are on the horizon. Changes may well interfere with his post-presidential plans.
Therefore, if per chance Mr. Ramkarran, who promises to be a ‘change candidate’, appears to be emerging as the party’s consensus candidate, I definitely won’t be surprised if an interceptive ‘alternative plan’ kicks in, based on deliberately orchestrated circumstances and featuring the PNC in Parliament voting to either postpone elections or activate the third term launch sequence.
This may then finally help explain why Mr. Corbin who said he is not running for the presidency on his party’s list has refused to down as Leader of the PNC and the main parliamentary opposition. I said a long time ago that politics is fluid, and will now add that politics can also be imprecise.
In a nutshell, the PPP’s bid for support among its core constituents of Indians in 2011 will not come down to records of achievements or failings, but powerful minds battling to manipulate the levers of power in the PPP hierarchy to gain the support of key players to pick a particular candidate.
Hopefully, that battle is limited to manipulating levers of power and not extended to include mayhem and murder, because right now the PNC is no longer the political bogey man that will drive Indians to vote PPP.
Emile Mervin
*************************************

The AFC must not fulfill Edmond Burke’s timeless prophecy
Dear Editor,
The principle of political exclusion articulated in the AFC’s statement of July 24, 2010 may transpose, if not obviate, consideration of that party’s political philosophy.
Until now, the AFC’s ethos seemed stimulating and revitalizing to Guyana’s political culture – it endowed the party with an enviable momentum as general elections speculation become rife and election maneuverings gain primacy in the ruling PPP.
But Guyana’s political history is replete with lessons of parties that adopt insular policies that paralyzed their evolution and reduced them to mere academic instruction – mere footnotes of history.
In this regard, Edmund Burke’s axiom “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” proves timeless, and seems to have been envisaged for this circumstance. Is the AFC doomed to repeat history?
The AFC’s statement affirmed its executive committee’s determination that “Alliances and partnerships should be forged with the majority decision being that the AFC, as early as is possible, proceed to forge alliances with civic society groups, like-minded political entities, and even personalities from both the PPP/C and the PNCR, but not with the PPP/C or the PNCR as political organisations.
The pre-election exclusion of the latter two from the process of alliance building and partnership was in recognition that these two parties are wholly incompatible with the AFC, which is the Party of the future; and, that the AFC ultimately will not be able to maintain its identity and core principles if it were to ally with either one of them.”
There is a pervasive view that the country is as divided as it has ever been and that the discriminatory policies of the PPP ethnocracy engender a level of polarization that has made Guyana mulishly unstable and arguably ungovernable. In light of this contending view, the aforementioned position of the AFC can only be seen as lacking wisdom and as a manifestation of political immaturity.
On its face, it seriously undermines the main thrust of the party’s doctrine of coalition building and national harmony; dilutes its credibility as an entity that professes a willingness to forge alliances throughout the continuum of the Guyanese political landscape, and exposes the AFC’s core philosophy as fundamentally flawed and intellectually obtuse.
Our polity is too rancid and cannot accommodate another political party that is intractably self-absorbed and insular.
Unfortunately, like the other parties who also claim to be open to an alliance intend to do, the AFC has made the cardinal mistake of already naming a presidential candidate – Khemraj Ramjattan. I would not even bother to elaborate on the apparent irony of first naming a presidential candidate prior to negotiations aimed at forging an alliance; except to ask if the AFC truly believes that if it were to enter a partnership with one of the two major parties that commands mass support from the electorate, that its partner will accept the candidate of the lesser party?
When these set of circumstances are analysed in an entirety, they portend a theme that appears incongruous with the message of alliance building, and more in harmony with “politics as usual.”
Furthermore, the philosophy of political exclusion appears to comport with the view repeatedly stated by Khemraj Ramjattan – that he does not think the AFC should enter a coalition, and dissimilar to the position adumbrated by Raphael Trotman in an interview with Demerara Waves only last week.
I have major reservations about the competence and integrity of the current leadership of the PNC, and would seriously weigh whether I can, or ask anyone else to, support the PNC if it goes into the 2011 general election with the current leader at the helm, but would not adopt or advocate a posture of disengagement.
Hence, the AFC’s flippant, preemptive preclusion of dialogue with either of the two main political parties that together represents about 85% of the electorate, betrays an institution with an oxymoronic, enigmatic philosophy – Advocating the need for coalition building on the one hand, while simultaneously retreating from that very position and undermining any possibility at accomplishing a “broad-based” alliance.
In essence, it is apparent that the AFC intends to go it alone at the polls, as the existence of the lesser parties with whom it seems disposed to negotiate is purely theoretical.
They are absent from reality and have no tangible impact on, or relevance to, national life.
Further, some of the political, civil society, community, trade union, business and religious leaders with whom it proposes to forge its so-called alliance on an individual basis, have in the past either demonstrated no serious political will or subjected themselves to the influence and manipulation of one political ideology or another. So why must we take them seriously this time?
This is the reality, and the people should not be deceived by fanciful diatribe and demagoguery.
Khemraj Ramjattan is a friend whom I respect. But I see no raison d’être in his “no coalition” position and am perplexed that that thinking contends. This is especially so because an analysis of the 2006 general election results will establish that Khemraj Ramjattan as a founding AFC principal had no “real” impact on the AFC vote.
Based on traditional voting patterns, the AFC had no meaningful impact in the areas of country that he perceivably could have influenced because of his personal qualities, orientation and prior political affiliation. The 2006 votes came from traditional PNC strongholds.
It would therefore have been prudent politics for the AFC to at least enter negotiations with the PNC and attempt foster a favourable modus vivendi with the PNC and other like-minded institutions, in the interest of the country, and forge an incomparable alliance in order to consolidate itself as a political force to contest the 2011 elections, and wrest the government from the PPP.
I do not posit these observations to discredit the AFC or anyone in its leadership. I have many friends in the AFC whom I admire and respect. But I am terribly disappointed with its stance. If the party follows through with this ill-conceived position stated above, it will squander the trust and hope it has built up over the past five years, and guarantee the PPP another victory.
I do not think that the AFC has come this far only to walk away from its moment of truth, and thwart the hopes, dreams and aspirations of those young people who have a vision for Guyana that rests on racial harmony, political unity and tranquility, national renaissance and ultimate development; and who have placed faith in the AFC to help them realise this dream.
My counsel to the AFC is therefore; as you evolve and mature, do not “metamorphosize” into another intractable political dinosaur. Review your creed.
Do not walk away from these young people and through your intransigence, condemn them to a morass of apathy and cynicism, and therein fulfill Edmond Burke’s timeless prophecy; “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Rickford Burke
*************************************

The Garden City is now a Garbage City
Dear Editor,
Littering is a major problem in this country. It is a national embarrassment, a worrisome situation and creates an unhealthy environment for all.
Georgetown, the capital, is a classic example of how undeterred littering can cause a Garden City to literally become a Garbage City. It is undoubtedly a major cause for concern, especially when efforts are being made to promote this country and market it as a tourist destination.
It is a country blessed with a unique beauty, natural richness, untouched by natural disasters and yet somehow this beauty is scarred by the ugliness of the environment caused by careless hands, unappreciated minds and a failed system. The garbage piles, the clogged drains, untamed weed, dead carcasses of animals on the roadways and the putrid stench are like the work of art of inefficiency and negligence.
In every town and district, there is Mayor and Councillors, men and women who are supposed to visualize, to plan and spend money allocated and collected to execute these plans, to enhance, to create, to maintain the country’s landscape and environment, to ensure that the system in place works for the benefit of the people. How functional is this system? Why isn’t the law against, littering enforced, so defaulting citizens can understand the gravity of this situation? Are we going to live in the wild forever?
It’s a national problem that seriously needs to be addressed, so compliments can be paid by tourists, not only for the interior but for the Coast Land as well. There is so much that can be made beautiful if only we have the right people, in the right place to do the right thing, and not allow power and greed to rule their minds, so for the present and the future, so we can live our lives in a healthy environment, showcasing for the world to see the natural and scenic beauty of this land.
Maureen Singh
*************************************

Freddie Kissoon replies to Errol Arthur
Dear Editor,
You refuse to dignify the pompous yet wild, imbecilic ramblings in support of this government that comes from tenth class citizens living in other countries, never coming back to their homeland. Errol Arthur’s letter in yesterday’s (Kaieteur News, 26-07-10) I will make an exception to.
I will make this exception to demonstrate the corrugated mind-set that exists among these people. First, I must state that if Randy Persaud chose this gentleman to be his spokesperson then it is a logical choice. Like Persaud, Arthur doesn’t know how to present a logical argument
Mr. Arthur writes; “Randy Persaud choose to serve his country. At the end of his assignment he left the country.” Arthur is so foolish that even a schoolboy can do better. Arthur didn’t tell us where is Randy Persaud’s country and which country he left after his assignment was over. Whichever country Arthur is referring to it cannot be Guyana. Randy Persaud, like Arthur literally ran away from these shores more than 40 years and chose to live in other countries and give their labour and investments (not money, I mean investments in terms of resources because most of them still live as tenth-class citizens in their new homes) to those lands.
Randy Persaud spent less than a year in Guyana where his academic displays were hilarious and made readers laugh not to mention his descent into a political style that was quite prevalent in the seventies. Arthur should take time and ask his mentor why he ran away from his supposed home land two weeks ago. In an editorial note, this newspaper wrote that he left in a haste. I did say in a later column I will tell the Guyanese people why Arthur’s hero, Randy Persaud packed and left. But there is an old saying about rats deserting a sinking ship.
Arthur wants to know about my curriculum-vitae. It is not as long as Randy Persaud for two reasons. One is I chose to love Guyana and not any other country (we have to love some country where it is our birth-land or another territory – Arthur would know what I am talking about). I hold no passport for another land or even a green card. I chose to live in a country and work at a university where the resources did not allow for the composition of a long curriculum-vitae. Secondly, when I submit my curriculum-vitae it will not read like a book of fiction like the one Arthur is familiar with
Finally, has Randy gone back to his hole and is held up there? He wrote non-stop when he was here. Yet he cannot muster a wee bit of courage to tell his PPP fans why he left in a haste? He had to leave it to someone like Errol Arthur? Well Arthur cannot even do better than a school boy. Just goes to show the company Persaud keeps. Arthur implies that I am unfit to teach at the University of Guyana. Well it would be the irony of world history if Randy Persaud is fit to teach at a high school muchless a university. I suppose the same goes for you Arthur. When you come out of your hole as Randy did, do not crawl back in as Randy did. Before I go, you claim as an academic I do not know facts when I see them. I wonder if you do. If you do then God has to help this world and quickly too.
Frederick Kissoon
*************************************

Dr. Misir uses a particular portion of the UN Special Rapporteur report to express his views
Dear Editor,
Doctor Prem Misir in his letter captioned, “Racial incitement is an illicit mechanism in the pursuit of power”, exercises the privilege to allow hypocrisy to be the foundation upon which he expresses his views as usual.
In this process, he selects a particular portion of the findings of one UN Special Rapporteur, Mr. Doudou Diène, in order to obfuscate a reality that is obvious to all but the most obtuse, and those with a special dislike for inconvenient truths.
The one positive thing about pieces like these is that they continue to reinforce the awareness of many in our communities about the lengths to which those intoxicated with absolute power will go in order to maintain a status quo that feeds their political ego.
Let me test Doctor Misir’s willingness to accept the findings of the UN special Rapporteur, who he liberally quotes in order to diminish and relegate the fears and concerns of a considerable portion of the population to the dustbin of reality. Doctor Misir quotes the Rapporteur as proclaiming that, “…….despite everything, this polarization, in all communities and at all levels of society, has resulted not in feelings of hatred between communities but rather in a culture of fear and mistrust which pervades all social activity….”, Misir further elaborates that, “…….During his meetings and interviews, he also noted the existence of a sense of belonging at all levels of society. Therefore, at the basic level of the people’s deepest feelings, Guyanese society does nurture the human values necessary for overcoming ethnic polarization and collectively building genuine pluralism, through which a dynamic, creative balance could enable cultural and spiritual differences to be recognised, respected, protected and promoted and universal values arising out of cross-fertilization among communities to be cultivated…The story of Guyana is, to a deeply disturbing degree, the story of political exploitation of the race factor by every political leader from every point on the ideological spectrum……..” Doctor Misir then goes on to indict the opposition leadership, in context, for what he describes as nefarious acts of inciting racial polarization.
Since Doctor Misir is buttressing his opinions on the investigation and findings of the Rapporteur, and blaming political leadership for inciting racial tension, how does he respond to the finding of said Rapporteur that quote, “……Disagreements between Jagan and Burnham arising out of their power struggle split the PPP and led to Burnham’s creation of the PNC in 1955.
Both parties adopted racial rhetoric in order to sway the sympathies of their main voter base in the communities. The PPP took up the Hindi rallying cry “apan jhaat” (“Vote for your own”), the Afro-Guyanese responded with a similar call for racial solidarity and the PNC, evoking the fear of Indo-Guyanese hegemony, called for a racial vote……..”? If one portion of the Rapporteur’s findings was important to the conclusions being drawn by Doctor Misir, why does he ignore the preceding portion that addresses the issue at its origin? We all know the answer to that question.
Mr. Misir’s position is that the fear and mistrust that plague our communities are products of racial incitement by the opposition, and he uses the findings from the Rapporteur that despite all of these people generally get on well. But the Rapporteur also finds an origin for this fear and mistrust, and it is not partitioned exclusively in the assembly of the opposition as Doctor Misir argues.
Further, Doctor Misir selectively cut that portion of the Rapporteur’s comment that fit the views he wishes to present, while conveniently omitting the foregoing assertion that quote, “……….The various barriers – human, psychological, social and cultural – thrown up as a result of this polarization have not merely distorted all aspects and forms of “living together”, but have also perpetuated and reinforced a state of economic and social underdevelopment, to the detriment of the entire society, in a country that possesses extraordinary natural, human and intellectual resources……”.
When one juxtapositions the findings of the UN’s special Rapporteur in their totality alongside the views of Doctor Misir expressed in the letter in question, the enduring nature of our divisions is more easily explained and understood.
Because rather than accepting the entirety of the Rapporteur’s findings and demonstrating the will and courage to address the report in its entirety, Doctor Misir instead chose to siphon off those pieces of the report he felt he could use to blame the opposition for a problem, the origin of which the Rapporteur lays squarely and equally at the feet of Doctor Misir’s Party. So what does that say about Prem Misir’s capacity to deal with inconvenient truths eh?
Mark A. Benschop
*************************************

This initiative will usher in a new more inclusive dispensation for Guyana
Dear Editor,
I heartily applaud the group of citizens which has initiated the process aimed at creating a broad partnership to contest next year’s general elections.
I firmly believe this big tent approach is required to set Guyana on the path to prosperity and the creation of a nation at ease with itself
Changes of government and changes in ideas go hand in hand and big tent will usher in a new, more inclusive dispensation.
Conceivably, after the 2011 general elections Guyanese may well ask themselves “why didn’t we go there before?”
I for one am relieved and happy that the initiative launched by the group of citizens is now airborne and en route to a new destiny and a new dawn. All must get on board.
F. Hamley Case

---

---