The PPP and PNC have the same people in leadership for far too long

Nov 29, 2015 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The letter in KN that the ‘PPP, APNU and AFC are on the same political page when it comes to Local Government Elections( LGE), appears to be an attempt by to obfuscate the PPP’s philosophies,  doctrines and practice in government, and to suggest to the electorate of Guyana that  LGE choices among the three will make no difference. The truth is that LGE is a critical form of direct democracy, much purer than national elections. On this score there is no record for comparison, between the PPP on the one hand and the APNU-AFC as a coalition administration on the other, only innuendo and contrived assumptions.
First, the PPP’s genuine beliefs about democracy are questionable. For example, the PPP’s mentality appears to be that unless the PPP wins all national elections something must be wrong with democracy in Guyana. Unless it is in power it refuses to share responsibilities for governance. Freedom of speech means that it speaks as centralized government and no one must be able to respond. Its ideology and doctrines were given full expression in its attitude towards LGE.  There is nothing democratic about democratic centralism. Indeed, PPP’s political and governance practice was the opposite of democracy. This reminds one of the farce of the vicious despotic regime in North Korea, calling itself the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, when nothing about it is democratic.
Second, the PPP had a choice and lots of time to prove its democratic credentials through LGEs’, but instead it engaged in every kind of political chicanery, subverting local self-government. In terms of time one cannot compare the first year of APNU-AFC with the last 20 years of the PPP administrations, where successive Presidents did the same thing. This is no mistake or accident. It is a direct result of the PPP’S ideology and doctrines such as democratic centralism.
Third to chastise and to hold the APNU-AFC accountable, for failing to deliver on the campaign promises, is nonsense. Having said that however, it is not even peculiar that the writer’s arithmetic allows him to chastise APNU-AFC  for not delivering  LGE within six months but he found no courage or desire(not sure which) to chastise  the PPP for no  elections at all for 20 consecutive years. Did he actually read the PPP’s manifestos that talks about democracy, freedoms etc?. The very fact that the PPP deliberately and calculatedly foisted  “Interim Management Committees” on local communities is proof of its design to illegally usurp all political power, and to continue its disregard for parts of the Constitution that did not suit its purpose. Subverting self- government and local choice of leadership is no accident;  it is “centralism” in practice.  However, for all his skill as a political observer he noticed none of this for 20 years. The APNU-AFC has the same choice and less time but has pushed ahead with LGE anyway. The difference between the PPP and APNU-AFC is like night and day.
Further, as appears to be customary, Vishnu did not notice that the PPP has gone rogue, thus stymieing the pace and even the possibility of serious institutional reforms urgently needed in Guyana. PPP is incommunicado with APNU-AFC regarding the big items on the national reform agenda, including constitutional reform, national unity talks, and social cohesion, and it refused to lend support for the Procurement Commission. It was even attacking GECOM for its willingness to speedily prepare for LGE.   In other words, regarding the things which will make Guyana a more democratic, just and progressive society the PPP is playing the obstructionist role.  Is it against a just and more equitable society? It appears so. We will make this concession to Lincoln Lewis too, on the issue of election of local community leadership. The APNU-AFC and the PPP are richly populated by people from the past 40 years. Several were in the proximity of, or directly exercising power in governments that not only espoused but practiced “Paramountcy of the Party and Democratic Centralism”. These two doctrines have cost Guyana greatly because, put simply, they are anti-democratic at their core, and in practice autocratic and despotic. One had hoped that these ghosts of the past would stay buried after 11 May 2015.  Now Mr. Editor, the problem may be that, if the old guard intend to practice government according to these doctrines because that is all they know then the game for Guyana will not change and, God forbid, the game may well be lost altogether since it does matter what people believe. We will see what happens after 12 months of APNU-AFC.
Ivor Carryl

---

---