Only Harripaul does not believe Ogunseye’s message

Jun 05, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I write in response to Mr. Malcolm Harripaul (May 27) challenging the notion that the PPP is a democratically elected government. Firstly, let me state that Harripaul failed miserably to prove his points.
None was validated and instead he presented unsubstantiated character assassinations. His letter was in response to mine regarding the “riot act statement” made by Tacuma Ogunseye and endorsed by Prof. David Hinds and subsequently by Freddie Kissoon and now Harripaul and Anand Daljeet.
I confess that unlike Harripaul I did not hear Ogunseye’s statement, but claims about riot, kith and kin, etc. have not been disputed by Ogunseye or Dr. Hinds. Only Harripaul does not believe Ogunseye’s message.
Contrary to what Harripaul believes, Indians have been on the receiving end of violence during every election since 1961 (except 2006) and during almost every protest march in Georgetown.
Virtually no election protest was violence free. And when one calls on the soldiers and police not to take actions or enforce the law against their kith and kin, the message is clear about the intention (recall Hoyte’s kith and kin statement).
When an election is held, the outcome must be respected.  One can’t simply say, “Africans must contest the election and if they don’t win, they must not accept the result” – Harripaul says he has no problem with rejecting the result and his statement was endorsed by Kissoon and Daljeet.
Why have elections then? If there are problems with elections or with the constitution, that should be sorted out now not after the elections, when the results don’t go your way.
Harripaul contends the PPP presidential candidate was selected undemocratically. The PPP has a mechanism that it considers democratic and that was accepted by all except one candidate. The party’s executive and CC members (except one) feel the candidate was selected democratically in accordance with its rules.
Since I am not a member or supporter of the PPP, it would be pointless to offer my personal view on the procedure although I would have liked to see a primary election process involving members as was suggested by opinion in a poll I conducted seven years ago.
Harripaul was a party member and supporter who did not see any undemocratic practice inherent in the party utilizing the current selection process until after his fallout with President Jagdeo and others.
Harripaul said the PPP was not democratically elected from 1992. This view contradicts the reports issued by all the international and domestic observers for all the elections.  Harripaul should take his evidence to the courts and the Elections Commission to nullify the results of all elections since 1992. Elections in Guyana are free and fair and people are free to campaign to win votes.
Harripaul claims the PPP relies on racial fear mongering and intimidation of Indians to win votes. That in itself is a contradiction. If racial fears work, why would the party intimidate the same people? It is more likely to turn them off and away from the election booth.
Harripaul should explain why the Indians are responding to PPP appeals based on fear and intimidation and why the PNC has not been successful in winning over the Indians. Is the fear real or imagined?  Is it justified? What has the opposition done to address the fears?
Many have said that Harripaul has allowed retaliation and vendetta against the PPP to cloud his judgment and analysis of politics in Guyana. I did extensive research in visits to Guyana on voter behaviour. When next he is in Guyana, Harripaul should have a chat with older doctors in the country.
He would find out about the hundreds of Indian girls who were raped (at national service) and had to have abortion to protect their families from shame.
He should also have a chat with older lawyers, police, civil servants and judges in the country. He would learn about the abuses of young Indian females and the judicial system, corruption and racism.
A sitting judge related an incident in which a 13-year-old Indian girl visiting with her working mother was raped in a government office. Both the mother and the girl were in tears but the judge (a clerk at the time) was helpless to aid the victim from the goon.
Has Harripaul forgotten about the banning of alou, dhal, roti, channa, etc. and the food police inspecting their pots and tawa to see if they are cooking banned foods? And how about the beating of political opponents? Has Harripaul forgotten the kick down door robberies?
And how about the burning and looting that followed the elections in 1992, 1997, 2001 and the court verdict in 2008? What about giving criminals hero funerals? With all of the above, does the PPP really need to appeal on fear to win votes? And if the PPP succeeds on fear, what has the opposition done to counter the PPP assuring the Indians they have nothing to fear?
Harripaul does not understand terminologies like “democratically elected” and “racially elected”. Being elected through the appeal of race does not make a party undemocratically elected. Racial appeal is the prevailing standard of elections in Guyana and many other multi-ethnic countries.
The PNM and UNC in Trinidad as do the various parties in Suriname appeal to race. In the US, Republican candidates in the South appeal on race to win elections. The Democrats appeal to Blacks and other minorities with racial messages. That does not mean the winners are not democratically elected.
I am glad that under a dictatorship, Harripaul can endorse the PNC in the election. I am not supporting any party. But I do believe people should be free to support their parties and change parties at their convenience and we should respect their choice. Haripaul was with the PPP, AFC, and now has joined the PNC. If that does not work out, the UF and AFC would be good options after the elections. I hope he gets it right one day.
Vishnu Bisram

---

---