Latest update November 10th, 2024 1:00 AM
Dec 28, 2013 Letters
DEAR EDITOR,
I write with reference to your news article titled, “Cabinet at odds with US Ambassador” (Dec. 25th) and note that Dr. Luncheon said that Cabinet particularly objected to (only) one of four components of the $300 million project: the one that allowed for a “relationship between USAID and individual political parties in Guyana”.
As a long-time activist on behalf of political causes in Guyana I have a particular interest in the single objectionable component. The problem that ails Guyana is ethnic parties and too high levels of ethnic voting. I would assume that USAID would use this relationship with all existing parties to gain leverage, and then to use this leverage to gently nudge them to transform themselves into genuine non-racial parties. Absent this relationship and leverage we have to ask: Is the project worth it?
Let me put it this way: If the project is implemented, and at the end of it PPP and PNC remain with their pure ethnic images – and all Africans and Indians continue to vote 95 percent strong for their respective ethnic parties, then the country remains at status quo. No movement towards a real non-racial democracy. Such an outcome will have to be considered a failure, unless the project was designed with other hidden aims.
When Cabinet approves of three of the projects’ components, and objects to the one that calls for USAID to have working relationships with individual parties, Cabinet is signaling “don’t interfere with status quo”.
There is another important issue in this U.S. Government vs. Guyana controversy, namely the sovereignty issue. Can the U.S. Government have an overt as opposed to a covert role in the electoral environment with clear and defined objectives to move the country along the path of a genuine non-racial democracy?
The U.S. government in 1990-92 played a major and successful cajoling role (not interference) in gently nudging all parties towards free and fair elections. You bet that was a clear precedent. Dr. Luncheon wants to deny that precedent.
As SN blogger Emile Mervin says, “Dr. Luncheon wants to eat his cake and have it too”. A well known Indian Rights’ activist and pro-govt. blogger (blog name LR7) in a sharp retort to Mervin says: “And it obviously flew over your head that an invitation is not enough, there must be consultation and agreement by ALL parties. Try to spin that”.
President Hoyte will be turning in his grave, if he only hears what LR7 is arguing, “Agreement by ALL parties”. You suddenly realize that president Hoyte was a true statesman. He did what was good for his country rather than what was good for his party. Would the PPP leadership rise to the level of Hoyte’s statesmanship?
Why would Cabinet (or any government for that matter) be opposed to anything that may change the status quo? Of course it’s the fear of losing power. What is more important for the country – solving the national and compelling issues of the day or deferring to the ruling Indian-ethnic ruling party and letting it hold on to status quo?
We are a small and poor country: no more than 650,000 people with annual per capita income of USD 3,500. We absolutely need the ABC countries to help us work through our differences to help us evolve into a genuine non-racial democracy and much more – to help reduce the high crime rate, provide investment capital and even to develop traffic regulations to end the daily road carnage.
Mike Persaud
Nov 10, 2024
Republic Bank U18 School’s Football League… Kaieteur Sports- The Petra Organization’s Republic Bank Under-18 School’s Football League completed its third round yesterday at the Ministry of...…Peeping Tom Kaieteur News- In politics, it’s the quiet signals—those unmistakable nudges and gestures—that... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – There is an alarming surge in gun-related violence, particularly among younger... 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]