Moral guidelines the PPP will never follow

Sep 20, 2013 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

There are times the PPP get criticized for policy and action that is common throughout the world. Take President Obama. If you look at his recent diplomatic appointments, many of the leading countries in the world received as ambassadors, persons who had contributed financially in large ways to Obama’s presidential campaigns.
There were some caustic comments about these appointments in the media since many of these appointees were not serving foreign service personnel. If Obama could do this, then you expect it to happen elsewhere. And it does happen. There is no way in the US or tiny Singapore or India that a candidate who wins power is going to bypass those that helped him/her in major ways. Human nature does not operate like that.
Many appointments the PPP made since it came to power in 1992 were contextual therefore normal in terms of what you find in the world. The difference between the PPP and literally the rest of the world is that the rest of the world expects their placements to act properly, do the right things and behave according to civilized norms.
From Obama to the smallest country in the world one will find that when these appointees misbehave, they suffer serious consequences.
It is simply a moral convention that when you serve in government and you commit egregious acts, then your political life will be in jeopardy. We can cite the recent case of Jack Warner. Warner was a priceless asset to the UNC until international controversies began to swirl around him involving accusations of financial fraud.
If there is any great value the original communist leaders had while they ruled Cuba was that they were intolerant of immoral behaviour of highly placed leaders.
If any government in the world refuses to sanction its highly placed officials it is the PPP regime and in this respect Burnham, Jagan and Hoyte were giants on the global stage not just in the Caribbean or Third World. By international standards, Burnham, Jagan and Hoyte were not prepared to retain politically appointed officials who abused their power in crass and terrible ways.
I may be wrong but I cannot see the leadership of Granger, Ramjattan and others in the AFC and APNU tolerating the kind of horrible misbehaviour that takes place in the PPP Government and that has been going on since Mrs. Jagan vacated the presidency.
Blaming Mr. Jagdeo alone may not be the right analysis. Even though Mr. Jagdeo was unmoved by the callous and immoral action of other PPP leaders, many of the influential voices in the PPP came to the protection of their colleagues who committed very nasty, unbecoming acts while they held office. Why the PPP behaves like this and why you hardly find another government that is so shamelessly protective of its bad eggs will entail a voluminous analysis.
Maybe there is no rational answer. I have been writing about the PPP since it came to power and some of its reactions may be impossible to explain. But every social phenomenon has an explanation. Perhaps we in Guyana have not found the reason for what can easily be described as illogical, inexplicable and irrational.
Why would a ruling party retain an apparatchik that is simply beyond redemption? Why would such a government tolerate officials who as soon as they receive their letter of appointment, they bark at members of the public? Why would a government persist with someone who continues to abuse his/her power?
Some of the interpretations that have been around a long time include the electoral invincibility of the PPP, meaning that they keep their bad eggs because they know they cannot lose elections so the electorate cannot punish them. This still does not make sense. If you know that you can never lose elections then you have a logical basis for punishing wrong-doers because those wrongdoers cannot hurt you at election time.
So we come back to square one – why does the PPP continue to behave like this? Is it happy to do so even though there is a third party around that can appeal to PPP constituencies and that third party has in fact hurt the PPP badly at the last election? It still does not make sense.
You are a minority government, you want to recapture your majority; then why give space to other organizations that can exploit your weaknesses? The case of NCN comes to mind. Where are the findings into allegations of financial misconduct at NCN? Where are the key players who were under investigation? Do they still work with the PPP Government or the PPP itself?

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News