A plethora of bizarre accusations

Jan 08, 2013 Letters

---

 

Dear Editor,
“I must however commend Mr. Ralph Ramkarran for his effort to restructure the PPP, and if his advice is heeded it might just do the trick. But I doubt it will,” wrote Mr. Erin Brewster in a letter to the SN of 4-1-13 titled “Ramkarran misstated the ideological bent of the PPP”.
In Mr. Brewster’s nostalgic harkening back of the Marxist/socialist “Dr Jagan support for shared government (which he views as) a device to bring to an end the perpetual political instability that one party rule …inevitably bring(s), and (whereafter Mr. Ramkarran) supports his, (Dr Jagan’s subsequent) refusal, to join with the WPA in a government of national unity”, there can be no new revelation what really ails Mr. Brewster.
What substantially explains his blurting out that “they did not want any dealings with an African political leader – not after Burnham – and that is the plain truth” except, underlying  painful exclusion and race preferences.   Again, race triumphs as the preeminent prequalifier.  But who owns it, by prescriptive rights?  This yearning for political power in a national government is logically and inevitably fleeting but not so within federalism.
How much receptivity can Mr. Brewster engender, by his adamant insistence that any evidence “that Dr Jagan ‘reached out to supporters, friends, and even critics in unorganized or organized groups’ to bring about a rapprochement with the PNC, is patently false”?
After these bizarre accusations, Mr. Brewster can reconsider in his sweet time and clarify whether “critical support” to the PNC was also false? Was Dr Clive Thomas  the  natural successor to Dr Rodney after his assassination , (rather than  Dr Rupert Roopnarine)  compelling Dr Jagan to offer the 1992 PPP/C Prime Ministership to Dr Thomas,  who refused it, making Mr. Sam Hinds Guyana’s Prime Minister? Who amongst the aforementioned is not proudly black and beautiful?
Noteworthy, is Mr. Brewster analysis that the respected former Speaker has embarked on a makeover of the PPP, having found “that the old Marxist/socialist ideology of the Jagans is now outmoded and must be replaced by some social commitment to the people and a review of the party’s constitutional structure to give its members a greater sense of identity with the party and its leadership”.
But contrast Mr. Brewster’s subsequent celebration of a contradictory but equally firm opinion that “the PPP never had a Marxist/socialist ideology, despite the ranting of the Jagans for the simple reason that it could never dream of nationalizing the private enterprises of its wealthy patrons.”
In other words if a “non Marxist/socialist PPP” were only to nationalize all its supporters’  private businesses it would only then be validating proof enough of its  sworn ideology, according to Mr. Brewster’s Marxist expertise.  Hasn’t Mr. Brewster now consequently garbaged all the US and British plots to destabilize the 1960s PPP government which empowered both the PNC and UF?
Mr. Brewster even asserts that “to claim that the PPP ‘has distinguished itself from the PNC and other parties by its history and struggles for independence and against PNC’s authoritarian rule’ is a fantasy”.  His efforts to traction the PNC to ‘surpassing’ primus inter pares (first amongst equals) elevation is achieved by devaluing the evidence that “first, the PPP that led the struggle for independence had as much input from those who subsequently formed the PNC, and secondly I cannot remember a single incident where the official defiance (sic) of the authoritarian rule of the PNC was led by the PPP.”
Mr. Brewster is convinced that “the credit for that goes to the WPA alone”.  So who gets the ‘credit’ for their current ‘socialist’ PNC alliance?    Mr. Brewster of course laid no claim that everyone who left the PPP in 1955 consistently agitated for independence from British rule. In fact Mr. Eusi Kwayana boldly attacked Mr. Forbes Burnham and the PNC before the 1961 elections because of their support for the winner leading Guyana to independence. The PPP won and the PNC reneged.
Despite all Mr. Brewster’s erratic flip flops between the PNC, WPA and UF, it is difficult to pinpoint Mr. Brewster’s actually loyalties, except to race. It is however his amazing measurement of “official defiance” to PNC rule which is incredulous.   Obviously Dr Walter Rodney’s extermination can only be a badge of PNC credibility – because his “official defiance” was dramatically sanctioned how else but by “a sharper steel” PNC style.
No doubt in all which Mr. Brewster and Mr. Ramkarran both pursue they have their cheerleaders. Any ongoing verbal debate is certainly always preferable than easy resort to acrimonious violence. Once racial antagonisms are aroused even legislation cannot quickly correct it. The British, Americans and others still have a strong influence on what occurs in Guyana. Whose fault is it that we are unable to define our own destinies amongst ourselves?
Sultan Mohamed

---

---