Anonymous letter writers who bash other writers focus on personalities instead of issues

Sep 01, 2010 Letters

Dear Editor,
I read the letter, “AFC’s brand of politics is no good for women, democracy nor Guyana,” (Kaieteur News, August 31), and must say I am not one to shy away from a healthy debate or discussion, but especially when the topic relates to the welfare of Guyana.
Almost all my letters focus on public issues and not personalities, except when the personalities are public figures who are central to or epitomize the public issues. I also place my name at the bottom of my letters, taking credit and criticism in stride.
Of late there are very few letter writers who choose to remain anonymous, and while they are entitled to their views and to be identified or not to be identified, it is almost cowardly to write a letter bashing another letter writer for his or her views or stance while remaining anonymous.
It is like you are walking a Georgetown street during a blackout/power failure at night and as you pass an alley way, a person standing in the thick darkness starts hurling verbal assaults at you, but you can’t see their face, even though you may think you recognise their voice. Of course you will be startled, to put it mildly.
And I must say I would rather suspect this is a male, but if it is who I think it is, I am deeply disappointed because even if I disagree with anyone I know or vaguely familiar with on any topic of public interest, I strive hard to avoid making it direct or personal with the individual. After all, we are not central to the issues.
As for the points raised by the anonymous letter writer, let me say that I am not a leader or spokesperson for the AFC. I am not even a dues paying or financial contributor to the AFC. I simply chose to support the AFC in 2005 because it presented itself as the alternative to the race-pandering PNC and PPP.
I also publicly stated my right to take the AFC to task whenever I see the need for this to be done, and that is why I welcome constructive criticism of the AFC, just as I think is necessary of the PPP and PNC. And all my criticisms of the PPP and PNC have been constructive in presentation.
Whenever I have reason to criticise the President or the PNC Leader, it is not so much personal (private) as much as it is about their role as public figures, yet there are times when it become extremely difficult to criticise them as public figures without appearing to get personal with them.
I don’t know if the AFC, or even Ms. Sheila Holder, will care to respond to an anonymous letter writer, but the writer does seem to be anti-AFC and anti-PPP with a hint of sympathy for the PNC under the guise of ‘joint opposition’, but if I were to indulge the writer in a comparative analysis of the three parties, this is how I would do it: Get a sheet of paper and write the letters of the three parties at the top of three separate columns. In each column, make a list of the good things/positives about the three parties. Then I will turn over the leaf and repeat the process, only this time to write the bad things/negatives. But I must be able to substantiate both the positives and negatives or at least use circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
To date, the main charges against the AFC are that their two principal leaders held on to their parliamentary seats after resigning the PPP and PNC, the Gaumattie Singh flare-up, and the rotating leadership deal that will give way to open contestation of the presidential candidacy. The new twists are that the AFC is as much a racial party as the PPP and PNC and now it has a gender bias.
The AFC should be able to address the latter two, but from my layman’s observation, the AFC’s original intention going into the 2006 election was to end racial voting practices by the PPP and PNC and become the melting pot party that pulled votes from every ethnic background. That mostly Blacks voted AFC had nothing to do with the party targeting Blacks specifically, yet it is an insult to those Blacks who voted AFC to contend they don’t have minds of their own. The AFC did not drag them to polling booths to place an ‘x’ next to the ‘key’.
I close by saying to the anonymous letter writer, I will keep my line of communication with you open and cordial, and that since we have no control over the events in the public space, let us respect the space afforded us to disagree without appearing disagreeable. And don’t hide your identity in the letters forum; it robs the authenticity of your perspective.
Emile Mervin

Latest News

Anonymous letter writers who bash other writers focus on personalities instead of issues

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 21st, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Mainstay Goldstar FC secures promotion to Elite League Season 7

Matthews’ all-round brilliance powers Windies...

Slingerz FC wants Shabazz

Stepton Barton, ‘Superman’ Lewis,...

Powerlifting Federation commends Government for...

Statistician Charwayne Walker expresses...

Features/Columnists

How do you analyse a Budget?

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

PPP Govt giving itself rich budget treats

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Anonymous letter writers who bash other writers focus on personalities instead of issues

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 21st, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]