Latest update November 8th, 2024 1:00 AM
Jun 09, 2017 Letters
Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr. Hydar Ally’s letter which was published in the Kaieteur News on Monday, June 5th, 2017 under the caption, “This year marks sixty years of the PNC”, in which he dealt with the spilt in the original PPP with Jagan and Burnham at the helm. It is unfortunate that the letter provided no new insight into this important national political event that took place in 1953. However, notwithstanding its shortcomings there are issues Ally addressed in the letter that still require clarification. It is my humble opinion that the Guyanese people are still suffering from this event that has so negatively impacted the nation.
Mr. Ally’s letter seems to be motivated to a large degree by (a) the desire to glorify his party, the PPP; and (b) to provide political information to the public, particularly the younger generation of Guyanese. It is my view that Ally is within his right and should enjoy the greatest latitude in his attempts at glorification of his party. However, in the matter of the dissemination of political information I hold strongly to the view that public education requires objectivity and clarity. It is on this score I invite Mr. Hydar Ally to be more helpful.
In his letter Ally wrote, “…The PPP was formed on January 1, 1950 which makes the party the oldest political party in Guyana and among the oldest in the Commonwealth Caribbean”. Given the way the historic political narrative has unfolded and the PPP’s propaganda since the 50s, the average Guyanese has the erroneous view that the PPP was the first political party in the country.
While Mr. Ally did not say so explicitly and, since I have respectfully attributed to him the noble intention of educating the public and more so the younger generation, on our political history, I hope he will reciprocate by responding to the following questions I now pose to him:(1) Is he saying that the PPP is the oldest surviving party in Guyana or (2) is he implying that the PPP was the first political party in Guyana?
My knowledge of developments on the political landscape in Guyana informs me that the PPP is not the first political party in the country, neither is it the first party to sweep the pools (landside electoral victory) nor is it the first to be neutralized/robbed of electoral victory by the British colonial power. The claim to that position belongs to the little known Popular Party (PP) which in the 1926 elections won 12 of the 14 seats up for grabs.
This success was determined by the colonial powers to be unacceptable, and measures were taken to ensure that the party did not exercise political power based on its victory. The British ensured that through the courts the popular party lost 5 seats on the grounds of technicalities.
In keeping with the need for public political education I refer here to another issue raised in Ally’s letter. He mentioned a recommendation made by the Robertson Commission and pointed out that it called for the, “communists and hardliners” in the PPP to be removed and the “moderate” elements be put in control of the party. In the latter part of his letter Mr. Ally stated, “… Suffice it to say that both the British and American administrations badly miscalculated in their assessment and characterization of Dr. Jagan and the PPP in terms of ideological orientation and political philosophy.” The obvious question for Mr. Hydar Ally to answer is this: was Dr. Jagan at the time of the incident at reference a Marxist/Leninist and a Communist?
Tacuma Ogunseye
Nov 08, 2024
Bridgetown, Barbados – Cricket West Indies (CWI) has imposed a two-match suspension on fast bowler Alzarri Joseph following an on-field incident during the 3rd CG United ODI at the Kensington...…Peeping Tom Kaieteur News- If the American elections of 2024 delivered any one lesson to the rest of the world, it... 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]