Ugly or deformed: Which word best describes the WPA’s politics?

Jul 22, 2017 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

Veteran journalist Bert Wilkinson is a living witness. Seated next to Bert was Dr. David Hinds. The place was the home of Aubrey Norton. The occasion was the birthday of Aubrey. As the discussion moved on to the upcoming APNU leadership meeting (which will take place today), I told Bert, while pointing to David, that the WPA’s biggest problem in dealing with the Granger Government and the PNC will be Rupert Roopnaraine.
What is taking place in the WPA at the moment has no parallel anywhere else in the world. Words cannot describe the crazy, bizarre flow of traffic in the WPA at the moment. Let us see if we can separate fact from fiction, reality from science fiction movie, and politics from poultry. Dr. Roopnaraine was generally viewed as the WPA’s appointee in the Cabinet after the new government was sworn in. But from day one, things looked suspicious. Suspicious in the sense that one did not know which portfolio went to Roopnaraine and who selected the portfolio.
Shortly after the government got into office, the media published Dr. Roopnaraine as the Minister of Natural Resources, and he was photographed with appropriate gear visiting a collapsed mining pit where several miners died. Then he became the Minister of Education. Fast forward the tape to July 2017. Roopnaraine was removed from Education and the WPA became livid. The WPA then made some startling revelations which lacerated its credibility, maybe permanently.
In complaining about not being consulted on the removal of Roopnaraine from Education, the WPA told the nation that it was not even asked to select its person to represent the WPA in government; Roopnaraine was chosen without official consultation with the WPA.
In this quagmire, questions came cascading like water from a fountain. Why did the WPA choose to tell President Jagan in 1992 that he could not pick from the WPA’s leadership who to offer a Cabinet post, thus rejecting Jagan’s choice of Clive Thomas, but the same WPA didn’t tell President Granger that he couldn’t choose Roopnaraine? Journalists have allowed the WPA to get away with this nasty immorality, by not forcing an explanation out of the WPA.
Next we come to the President’s assertion that every unit in APNU was given ministerial portfolio and Roopnaraine was the WPA’s person in the Cabinet. As matters stood there, the WPA had a person in the Cabinet. The WPA did not object to that, and Roopnaraine accepted a new portfolio. Then came Roopnaraine’s resignation. The WPA met in a special session with Roopnaraine, even bringing into the meeting persons who severed relations a long time ago with the WPA.
A philosophical exchange occurred with Roopnaraine. The deal was done. His health was a problem, and WPA would nominate someone to replace him. Roopnaraine, the meeting agreed, would continue to serve the WPA in any way he could.
Roopnaraine then met with Granger and withdrew his resignation, which he did on his own. It was not a decision of the WPA, and the big ones in the WPA are livid with Roopnaraine and Granger. First with Roopnaraine, because he did not consult them even in the vaguest way that he was stopping his departure. With Granger because the WPA (I was told this by WPA executives) feels that with Roopnaraine in the Cabinet and not inclined to express WPA’s sentiments in policy-making, the way has been stopped from WPA to have a voice in policy-making.
This is the stage we are at, and the very existence of the WPA is on trial today at that APNU leadership meeting. The Guyanese people should not accept further depravity from the WPA if it does not square with the nation.
First, does the WPA accept that Roopnaraine is their placement in the Cabinet? If yes, why accept such a leader who, from his deportment since the election victory in May 2015, does not appear to be a committed WPA representative in the Cabinet?
Secondly, is the WPA satisfied that given the health issue of Roopnaraine, he can serve the WPA’s desires in the government, influence policy-making and introduce the core values of the WPA into governmental direction? If the answer to this question is yes, then the WPA thinks the Guyanese people are stupid. But more importantly, such an untenable position disqualifies the WPA from using moral criteria to criticize President Granger and APNU leadership.
Given its caricatures within its own leadership, how can the WPA demand moral politics from the leadership of both government and APNU? This country may very well see the final withering away of the once glorious WPA. What an ignominious way to go out.
****
RETRACTION AND APOLOGY to MR. RALPH RAMKARRAN
Mr. Ralph Ramkarran has written to ask for a retraction of certain sections of my column of 18th July, 2017, which implied certain actions on his part in a court case involving the university. On looking back on those statements, I concur with Mr. Ramkarran, nothing personal or malicious was intended. Mistakes are liable to be made. An apology is extended to Mr. Ramkarran. As requested, I hereby retract the offending sections. I hope by this apology and retraction, our relationship will improve.

---

---