Latest update December 18th, 2024 5:45 AM
Oct 08, 2010 Letters
Dear Editor,
I refer to celebrated attorney Vic Puran’s letter titled: “The 1973 elections are a festering sore on the conscience of the nation”, SN Sept. 3rd.
The PNC’s record of stealing elections is thoroughly documented, Read Lord Avebury’s report (1981), America’s Watch report (1990) and numerous locally published reports of the period 1968-1990. The sheer scale of the fraud is astounding – not 5 percent, not 10 percent but close to 35 percent. The scale and scope of PNC’s fraudulent elections would compare favourably with those of Noriega’s Panama and Marcos’s Philippines.
Now retired Brigadier David Granger says the role of the Army was limited to collecting, transporting and securing the ballot boxes. Nothing else!
What an incredible statement to come out of the mouth of this man? He is saying he personally has no knowledge of why the boxes were being “secured” in the Army compound, and most importantly that the Army itself has no role in “fixing-up” the ballot boxes. I am sorry Brigadier but I would have to suspend my disbelief to fully comprehend the import of your statement.
It is impossible for the Army to escape responsibility from what was done to the ballot boxes. I wish the Brigadier would apologise for the army’s role in those colossally fraudulent elections – and let’s move forward.
What does Mr. Puran intend to communicate to the Guyanese people with his concluding sentence, “I admit that he (David Granger) is eminently qualified to lead the PNC?” You cannot fail to notice the loaded irony nor the fact that Mr. Puran was making a most devastating statement about the character of the PNC.
I wish to make a few comments on this rather strange nomination. David Granger is an African-Guyanese. For almost 60-years now the PNC has been perceived to be an African party. It has always been led by an African. And, all of this occurs in a nation in which 50 percent of the population is Indians. So it is inescapable that the PNC is more interested in continuing its age-old tradition of preserving the purity of its African character.
And, not the least bit interested in transforming and reinventing the party to play a useful and winning role in a multiracial society.
The main purpose of a party is to win elections. Could the PNC be really serious about winning Indian votes – while it strives so strenuously to preserve the purity of its African character? Would it not help if the party were to give serious consideration to nominating one of the few outstanding Indians from among its currently serving Member of Parliament slate?
What’s wrong with Clarissa Rhiel or Winston Murray? As leader of the party wouldn’t Clarissa or Winston help to project a new image – a multiracial image – for the party? And, wouldn’t Clarissa help the PNC to win a greater share of the gender vote? And, wouldn’t either one of them help to win a greater share of the Indian vote? Has the party given up on the Indian vote?
If the PNC finds itself unable to breakout of the granite-ethnic-mold in which it has been cast over the last 60-years – and which constrains it to continue practicing ethnic politics – then it must be said that the PNC is contesting elections for academic reasons only.
The African vote at 35 percent of the electorate is a finite number. Running as an African party, that’s the maximum share of the vote the PNC will poll. The only hope for the PNC is for it to re-educate itself – and learn how to do politics in a multiracial society.
Mike Persaud
Dec 18, 2024
-KFC Goodwill Int’l Football Series heats up today Kaieteur News- The Petra Organisation’s fifth Annual KFC International Secondary Schools Goodwill Football Series intensified yesterday with two...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- In any vibrant democracy, the mechanisms that bind it together are those that mediate differences,... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – The government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela has steadfast support from many... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]