The politics of the AFC is not for the good of the nation

Sep 03, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Emile Mervin’s letter, “Anonymous letter writers who bash other writers focus on personalities instead of issues” September 1, 2010 is an exercise in ego tripping and fakery.
No prolific letter writer should get startled at any time when “insults” are hurled their way whether from an identified source or an unidentified source.
The use of pseudonyms, have existed perhaps as long as the art of writing became commercial and a means of social commentary.
Only for the very naïve or those who seek to discredit others will it be construed as cowardice when it has been used in every facet of literary works and to date has never been used as a criterion to discredit best sellers.
On the contrary Social Psychologists may analyse the very prolific letter writer who chooses to identify by name, not as brave, but as an individual on an ego tripping exercise with a desire to be noticed and recognised as someone of influence either socially or politically. Note the prolific letter writer is different from the causal letter writer.
He or she writes more than the average journalist/columnist, does not have the status of a journalist, but does a daily spread in his or her attention getting behavioural manifestation. Instead of bravery it may be a deficit that such writers are trying to fill.
Emile Mervin is a prolific letter writer and these types have personalities. A mere reference to their name in identifying them as the originator of a point or the person to whom comments are directed is an opportunity for them to claim personality attacks and portray an air of comparative self-righteousness. They seize the moment to place themselves on a pedestal for viewing. They also have a penchant to believe their views are above all others and their method of analysis is flawless.
This is demonstrated as Mervin blows a discorded note from his own trumpet when he claims that, “all my criticisms of the PPP and PNC have been constructive in presentation”.
He also uses this statement to suggest that the same pattern of analysis is used for the AFC.
The records will show that Mervin is just another rabid political letter writer with an axe to grind against the PNC; advancing arguments to cover the AFC’s shallow self-serving interests and efforts to undermine any coalition;   one who does not particularly like the PPP, but who is now willing to overlook and polish the inconsistencies and early projections of AFC weaknesses and Machiavellian politics as evidenced from day one during the birthing process of this new kid on the block.
Worthy of notice is that Emile has not discredited any of my arguments which points to the AFC being no different than both the PPP and the PNC as race based parties.
None of these parties, similar as the AFC, do not drag voters to polling booths to place an ‘x’ next to the cup, or the palm tree. Yet the AFC which party looks like the PNC is being allowed to masquerade as multiracial and the PNC and the PPP are race based?
The directions of the AFC due to its structure are being charted by two who came from the same mold as the PPP and the PNC.
The AFC offer nothing new other than more bold face forms of deceit from a younger generation of politicians.
In the short reign of the AFC, Mervin conveniently only remembers a few “main charges” against the AFC which he dismisses, the gender bias in the AFC which stares all Guyanese in the face, he treats as a “twist”. His attempt to collapse actions and charges as one and the same is either an act of deceit or just another of his faulty analysis when it comes to the AFC.
Whereas there may be one act the charges emanating from that may be numerous and hence the Act of the AFC leaders to form a political party, denouncing old politics and advocating their clean beginnings and new politics can be charged as deceitful,
selfish, untrustworthy, Machiavellian, bullying,  etc.  Similarly the act of denying Sheila Holder a leadership turn when she was a founder member, coupled with the act of rotating leadership among two men can be charged as chauvinistic, dictatorial, undemocratic, gender discriminatory, etc. Note no one else in the AFC can be its leader and all except the big “chi bats’ are doomed to be followers.
The AFC does not have a culture of democracy.  Peter Ramsaroop accused this party as being the most undemocratic one. Unless these two big ‘chi bats’ see Sheila Holder as incompetent at that level of leadership which Ms. Holder’s recent writings and positions may cause some to accept then what is their excuse for denying leadership challenges in the AFC? Ms Holder’s acceptance of this position insults progressive and assertive women and undermines democracy.
This is nothing personal just an observation of the consequence of her actions.
Both Sheila Holder and the AFC are to be blamed for the appointment of a PPP labour lackey instead of the PSU representative on the PSC.
This act places the AFC and Ms. Holder in a position of distrust and willingness to undermine a group perceived as anti-PPP. Note, the AFC talks of trust even as their actions cannot be trusted.
As elections loom the AFC is seen pulling its same old tricks of creating confusion similar as they did in 2006, when they knew the list was heavily stacked against the opposition (GECOM admits to padding in excess of 1000, 000). Today as the opposition forces rally to get rid of the PPP/C Government the AFC undermines efforts at opposition unity and creates distractions that take the focus off of the PPP/C which should be the target to remove in 2011.
This is because the AFC is more bent on consolidating its position as an opposition party or as the main opposition.
To do this they must create disunity in the ranks and rejection of the main opposition or joint opposition. The politics of the AFC is not for the good of the nation, but the good of the AFC.
It is not democratic and it is anti-women in leadership positions. It is divisive and corrupted. It is cheap and its claims to “new politics” and a “new breed of politicians” is a farce.
Coming back to the Central point, AFC’s brand of politics is no good for women, democracy nor Guyana.
Their actions and implications of their actions demonstrate they would allow Guyanese to suffer for another term or more under the PPP as they build their opposition empire. Their political strategy supports the PPP and not the opposition.
Name and Address Supplied

---

---