Why blame the AFC for reading the grassroots point of view and strategizing accordingly?

Aug 25, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In Arthur Schlesinger words, “a great injustice was done to Cheddi Jagan”. From my reading on our nation’s history, this injustice included destroying a popularly elected government (with an electoral shenanigan called Proportional Representation (PR) in 1964), undermining democratic electoral procedures (with the mis-use of the overseas and postal votes in 1968 and beyond), and directly inciting racial strife to steal power from Dr Jagan in the 1962-1964 period.
I open with this position in response to a letter from former Minister Henry Jeffrey in the SN and Kaieteur News of August 13th and 14th 2010 respectively since it is clear he has chosen to forget significant segments of our nation’s historical facts.
It was with grave disappointment that any independent thinker will read sections of this letter by Dr Jeffrey since it alluded to “Burnham’s tenacious handling” of coalitions. He used the words of Dr Reid to highlight his point of Burnham being “clear-sighted and steadfast” at coalition.  What are the objectives of Dr Jeffrey’s letter?  When one takes the time to research and draft such a letter, then one has clear intentions.  One can easily sense Dr. Jeffrey anxiety at the AFC’s position on a coalition with the PNC and the PPP.
Why should this cause anxiety to a former PNC and PPP czar like Dr. Jeffrey?  Is he worried that the PNC is at the gates of obliteration?  Is he worried that the PPP will not have its greatest asset (the PNC) to win elections from 2011 onwards?
I will delve into a series of lessons from our history to reveal that what Dr. Jeffrey is attempting to achieve by way of this letter has been done before with severe adverse consequences for the Guyanese nation? So why should the voters even consider his advocacy when it is aimed at repeating history in a manner that will further perpetuate our self destruction as a nation. The facts are Burnham never believed in any coalition in any form unless it served his and only his exclusive purposes.
In 1964, he was “steadfast and clear sighted” in his opportunism to position himself to the US Ambassador, Mr. Carlson to twist arms at setting up a PNC/UF coalition. The facts are that the PNC and UF had very few attributes in common, save and except that they were anti-Jagan parties. By 1968 however, when Burnham arranged for the increase in proxy votes, and for the provision of false voter registration cards for overseas-based Guyanese including the two horses found in Manchester, UK called Lilly and Olga Barton, he has no use for the UF anymore as a coalition partner.
Ambassador Carlson was so disappointed with the deceptive behaviour of Burnham and his treatment of Peter D’Aguiar in 1967 that he subsequently labeled Burnham a “racist who remembers slights and repays them” (quoted from memorandum by Gordon
Chase of the conversation between Carlson and Bundy).
Thus Dr. Jeffrey’s utterance can be seen as the kind of advocacy by the old but yet powerful political forces in Guyana to carry on the status quo – a PPP Government/ PNC main opposition party or a coalition in some form of the two.  Thus the voting public must understand the genesis of the pressure being brought to bear on Raphael Trotman singularly to break up the AFC. I encourage Mr. Trotman to read a book called “U.S. Intervention in British Guiana” by Stephen Rabe, if he had not already done so, to get a better understanding of evidence on how the PNC operates in preserving this PNC/PPP status quo over Guyana. The last time this status quo was really threatened was when Dr. Rodney was doing his political grounding with the people and what happen to him? The AFC is now clearly threatening this status quo. The writing is on the wall so all the elephants in the political room are lining up their firepower against the AFC.
Some interesting arguments were raised by Dr Jeffrey.  On the question of a unitary people partnership of opposition forces, he stated this is necessary to capture Government.  However, Dr. Jeffrey was too naïve to not explain where will you put the elephant in the room – the PNC?  If he is suggesting the PNC is a valuable member of such a partnership, then he has failed to address the fears of a significant percentage of our people – fear of the PNC and its methodology of governance. Why blame the AFC for correctly reading the grassroots point of view and strategizing accordingly? There is no tangible evidence that the PNC has made that paradigm shift to allay that fear by a significant chunk of Guyanese voters. With this fear solidly in place, no coalition with the PNC in the mix in a leading role, can ever win 51% of the electorate, so although more than 51% of the people are peeved at the way the Jagdeo regime is managing their affairs, once the PNC is in the picture, some of that majority will subject themselves to “salt and rice” rather than a PNC led Government.  The PNC has hard choices to make – face the nation and repent publicly for its past actions such as the rigging of elections or stay away from the 2011 elections since the writing is on the wall, any coalition with the PNC in it will lose the elections hands down.
On his second point, no one would want to disagree with Dr Jeffrey that ethnic voting is a tool of politics in Guyana, but what he has failed to address is who practices this covert racism. What he has also failed to address is the opportunity for the AFC to fire up the youth voters come 2011 who are not inclined to vote race. Many youths stayed away from the PNC and PPP in 2006 and these youths are the scope of the opportunity to dilute our racist voting patterns of the past. If the AFC can only motivate these youths to register, then come 2011, the AFC will double its votes and more since the AFC track record is distinctly superior to the old political forces. So why would the AFC want to submit itself as the concubine of a dying political force?
I am firm in my conviction that organisations like the WPA, with surgical precision will be chewed up and spit out by the PNC as they outlive their usefulness since there is only so many seats a PNC led coalition can win at free and fair elections and it is not enough to share out to political minnows. I personally believe that Dr Clive Thomas and the WPA is engaging in adventurism by joining up with a PNC led coalition. The WPA came from that rich history of being led by one of the best Afro-Guyanese leaders the world has ever known – Dr Walter Rodney.
It was a party that never focused on race for its support but on class issues. Thus, the foundation of the WPA is very different from the PNC. The PNC has a rich history of rigged elections, the practice of covert racism and are the authors of a constitution that was just plain anti-freedom. How can a freedom fighter like Dr Clive Thomas with a rich track record of struggle for the freedom of Guyana in this day and age reconcile his philosophy to that of a Robert Corbin?
So the question on the table is what is the exclusive use of the WPA at this point in time to the PNC? Intellectual credibility and nothing else since the WPA does not have any constituency to even secure a “phira” in the National Assembly. If they stay in the PNC led coalition, then the time will come when history will repeat itself and the PNC will drop them like hot potatoes. The PNC is using the WPA for the sole purpose of trying to regain their lost flock so that they can engage in effective political bargaining with the PPP for positions in the post 2011 Government of Guyana and this may not be a bad thing but why endeavour to consume the best thing that has happened to Guyana since Dr. Rodney – the AFC?
As these events unfold, with the pressure increasing on AFC to join the PNC led coalition, I just keep remembering the three American administrations who sacrificed their ideals (freedom) and values (democracy) to keep communism out of Guyana in the 1960’s. Will the AFC sacrifice its ideals and values for power under a PNC led coalition? Very unlikely and the Guyanese people will understand and reward the AFC for being politically mature and different from the old politics of race voting. I rest my case.
Sasenarine Singh

Is the chicken farm claim a hoax?

Dear Editor,
For many there has never been a more brazen, bare-faced, or shame-faced attempt to cry wolf. The front- page story of Wednesday 11th August, 2010, Kaieteur News, reads “Corentyne Businessman loses 4,000 chickens in flood”. What?
When near 20 residents left the area at the No. 67 foreshore where the No. 66 Creek had over flown the retaining wall of the river into the side line trench at No. 67 Village, at about 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday 10th August, 2010, the water was already receding. In the meantime, the water that had over flown the creek had already accumulated in the three nearby trenches – the side line trench on the north, the sea defence trench to the east and the village drain to the west. Residents left with the full knowledge that the danger had passed. Two authorities were duly informed – the NDC and the Sea Defence Board.
Wednesday morning, 12th August, 2010, the RDC sent in a backhoe to seal the breach and reinforce the dam. By noon Kaiteur News arrived in the community, leaving everyone wondering how and when the businessman had lost 4,000 chickens. Several residents across the street from the complex noticed that early Wednesday morning the businessman had accumulated about 10 plastic tubs of dead chicken – of varying size and weight – in front of the complex, brought in a village photographer. The pictures now appear as evidence of the havoc created by the destructive flood – or so it would seem.
The community was abuzz with talk and speculation about the 4,000 chicken. Who counted them? Where and when did they die? If the water was receding when neighbours left on Tuesday afternoon/evening how did it find its way into the compound? What happened to the dead chickens? Was the health/environmental officer called in to supervise and ensure that they were hygienically disposed of? Were the chicken tested to verify the cause of their death? Subsequent investigation reveal that the local environmental/health officer was never informed of any dead chickens and readily agreed that 6,000 pounds of dead chicken would require some hygienic/health supervision to dispose of them.
At about 5:00 P.M. on Thursday 13th August, 2010, a group of residents decided that an investigation was required. Two, armed with camera, went in search of the dead chicken and evidence of the flooding that killed them. About a dozen of those spoken to could not say what happened to the chicken – the rest threw their hands up in disgust and knowing resignation. A health danger and environmental degradation was at work if the chicken were disposed without supervision and adequate hygienic care. But, were there 4,000 chickens in the first place? And were they killed by flood waters from the creek?
A health consultant’s report was not available at the time of sending this to Kaieteur News. It will be made public as soon as it is complete. The report is intended to inform the community of the amount of ammonia that is produced by 13,000 chicken and the likely health risks that follow from it. Never mind the regular and
unbearable stench that comes from the same 13,000 chicken.
If the 4,000 count is true, and the businessman suffered a loss of $1 million that would amount to about 6,000 pounds of chicken – estimating cost at $175 per pound each chicken would weigh an average of one and one half pounds. Could 6,000 pounds of dead chicken be disposed of without anyone being aware of where they had gone, especially when they were so openly and publicly displayed for the camera?
Second, a thorough search of the perimeters of the businessman’s compound do not show any traces of the silt-laden water from the creek entering the compound. The latter is surrounded on four sides by a fence of mesh and wallaba post, with a six-inch stretcher at the bottom. On the northern fence, adjacent to the creek, the area is covered with black sage – about 50 feet away from the sideline trench where the overflowing water from the creek entered the village. Here, there were no traces of the brackish-brown, silt-laden residue, evidence of the creek water, on the bright green leaves. Nor were there any traces of mud, water or dampness on the ground to indicate that the area had been wet either through rain or flood waters from the creek in the recent past. Moreover, along the trench evidence of residues from the creek water do not reach to the top of the land where the water would have started to make its way to the businessman’s compound. The only breach on the northern side of the fence where the flood waters of the creek could have entered is a drain, from inside the compound to the sideline trench, about 10 inches wide and 8 inches deep, that the businessman had dug to disgorge the effluent from the chicken farm into the village sideline drain.
And even here it does not appear that the water had entered. A close, nose-smell of the damp drain, no water was visible, was of chicken excrement and not the fresh salted, flood waters of the creek.
The eastern fence is cleared of brush and while there is indication of some water these would appear to be not from the creek. They are dispersed in little pockets, cream coloured and not the brackish, brown water from the creek. On the southern fence, furthest away from the creek, the brush has been removed with no indication of water anywhere. On the eastern side, the village drain, the front of the compound, the water that entered from the overflowing creek reached about a foot off the height of the compound on the adjacent lot.
The front of the compound is completed riveted and built-up, partly covered by a bridge and clearly intended to prevent flooding of any kind.
Finally, peering into the compound through the meshed-fence it appears that the three pens (a fourth is under construction) housing the chicken, are built on two concrete blocks, one on top of the other, 8 inches each, and a piece of lumber (2 X 4) providing 18 inches of protection from either rain or errant creek water. For the over flowing creek water then to get to the chicken it had to rise another 18 inches to scale the concrete blocks and lumber.
When the chicken pens were constructed in February 2010 and the chicken began to arrive, residents complained to the NDC.
The latter issued a cease a “desist order” for the construction and wrote to the EPA drawing attention to the fact that EPA’s policy is that no more than 500 chicken can be farmed in an up-wind area in a residential community. It remains uncertain whether the EPA provided a permit for the operation of the chicken farm.  In other words, the chicken farm was constructed and began operations without a building permit against the wishes of the community, against EPA regulations,  perhaps even without an environmental permit, while the claims of loss chicken maybe a hoax.
Rishee Thakur

---

---