Present the positives not fear and intimidation

Apr 21, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
From his writings I have always considered Mr. Ogunseye a very intelligent and respected person. He commands a prominent position in the cultural organisation, ACDA, and is highly favoured in and by several political parties.
ACDA, in my opinion, is the Afro-Guyanese equivalent to the Indo-Guyanese organisation, Maha Sabha. Neither ACDA nor the political parties that favour Mr. Ogunseye should be considered, by any means, fringe organisations, and should not be ignorantly dismissed as such.
His recent call for extreme action should the PPP/C (if that party wins the upcoming general elections) fails to implement some form of shared governance has so far met with severe criticism from one side of the fence, and an understandable silence from the other side.
Although he fails to qualify exactly what he means by shared governance (because shared governance means a lot of things to a lot of people), Mr. Ogunseye is not an irrational individual; his statement derives from a perception of marginalisation, a perception shared by a significant percentage of the population, including, of course, some of the political parties. Mr. Ogunseye is not blowing hot air. Impetuous, perhaps, but then, his critics are equally so.
It would be wise, therefore, for analysts and political entrepreneurs alike to objectively examine this perception to determine to what extent it is valid. Is this perception based overwhelmingly on facts, incidents and circumstances?
Should a poll or referendum be taken in effort to validate (or invalidate) or measure this perception? If found to be significantly valid, then what is to be done?
What exactly is ACDA advocating by shared governance? To me it does not mean the same as shared government.
Shared governance is what is already constitutionally present in Guyana at both the regional and national levels. Shared government means allocating some cabinet positions to the opposition.
Personally, I support this position. But, like President Jagdeo, I do not think it should be obtained through insidious backdoor efforts. And worse yet, by extremism.
The US hegemonistic foreign policy has never historically tolerated extremism in Guyana and will not do so now in Guyana or in any other country.
Much of its 14 trillion dollar deficit is not caused by trade imbalances, but by heavy military spending, a significant amount of which is on confronting extremism in various parts of the world as well as in its backyard countries.
Thus, any local political party would sensibly distance itself from this extreme position. I think Mr Ogunseye’ impetuous statement has done harm to the political efforts of all the opposition parties. Racial violence has been tested and tried on numerous occasions to bring about political change in Guyana. It is the most subjective and dangerous instrument of change, and has failed and was subsequently abandoned. The last two general elections were comparatively free of racial violence. It is now a thing of the past.
Furthermore, the “kith and kin” call on the army is an empty call, as it was with Desmond Hoyte.
The army was too professional then and is even more professional now to respond. If in nearly two decades it did not overthrow the government, it is not likely to do so now.
Besides, any sensible leadership in the army would first consider the international consequences before rising up against a legitimately elected government.
What Mr. Ogunseye and all the other parties need to do is embark on a massive education (not propaganda) programme at the grass root level. They need to stop using the race tool, stop accusing only Indo-Guyanese of racial voting. They need to show the people how shared government will transform their economic and social well-being. They need to show how political stability and crime reduction, directly resulting from shared government, will result in massive domestic and foreign investment; they need to produce a manifesto and show quantitatively how the repatriation of foreign-based Guyanese and their money will make their lives better. They need to present the positives, not fear and intimidation.
Furthermore, in their manifesto, they need to present the people with a statement as to which cabinet positions they would like to control and why, followed by detailed policies and procedures on how they would run these offices or ministries. The manifesto becomes the tool for the people to evaluate and judge the incumbents.
Preparing an electioneering plan and educating the people is a lot of hard work and it requires some degree of expertise. If a people or party is not prepared to work hard, Mr. Ogunseye, or do not have or cannot engage the expertise, like in any civilized democracy, to prepare such an electioneering plan and do the hard work, then by resorting to extremism it relegates itself to backwardness and fascism, and the country eventually to anarchy. Like I said, I have followed Mr. Ogunseye’s writings for years now and I am certain that is not what he wants for Guyana.
Gokarran Sukhdeo

---

---