The national interest is more important than partisan interests

Dec 04, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

Mr. Frederick Kissoon’s column published in the Kaieteur News’ November 27th 2019 edition under the caption, “A critical point Donald Rodney missed on the PNC-WPA union” was in my view one of the few occasions that Kissoon in his writing on the WPA conveyed the impression of an attempt at objective analysis.
Kissoon, in his examination of the WPA’s praxis pre- and post-2015, concluded that the party should have ended its relationship with the PNCR as early as 2015-2016. It is unfortunate that he persists in raising these matters in the election season, and given more urgent political imperatives, I would not engage each issue raised in the column in a detailed way. Hence, I am restricting my response to the central contention in Kissoon criticism of the WPA.
He is adamant that the objective political situation prior and up to 2015 that, which he agrees had justified the WPA/PNCR alliance, ceased to exist post-2015. On that score, the WPA should have parted company with the PNCR. He wrote, “The objective conditions for the WPA remaining with the PNC in an alliance were no longer there after 2015. This is what Donald should have told Ogunseye.”
It will not be fair for me to take the position that Kissoon is contending that with the defeat of the PPPC and the coming to power of the APNU+AFC government, the objective political situation in the country had changed. And therefore the WPA’s goal had been achieved and it was time to end its alliance with the PNCR. His position is premised on concern with elements inherent to the political equation and PNCR/WPA relations.
Kissoon raised the following issues: (a) Robert Corbin’s vision and role in the formation of APNU (b) David Granger as PNCR leader and his vision and ideology (c) PNCR’s political behaviour having come to power.
It is not my intention in this response to discuss the above-mentioned points. My concern is with the logic inherent in Kissoon’s conclusion that the WPA should have left the Coalition as early as 2015 or 2016.
Kissoon stated, “…the objective conditions for the WPA and the PNC working together no longer existed in 2016 onwards.”
Kissoon seems to have difficulties in deciding exactly when the objective situation had changed to justify the WPA ending its relations with the PNCR. On one occasion he points to 2015, then to 2016 onwards. However, it is his conclusion that is important in the polemics.
Is Kissoon’s position that the Coalition Government and its governance record since 2016 is equal to that of the PPPC or worse? If this is his position, I beg to differ. Any objective examination of all the fundamentals as they relate to government/governance would demonstrate that Kissoon’s contention does not hold. It is like comparing cheese with chalk – so to speak. And this is also true for government rule from 2015 to the present.
The APNU/AFC government is not as authoritarian as the PPPC or previous PNC regimes. To date, President David Granger has not abused his powers as previous presidents have done. The level of corruption and drug-running is nowhere near what it was during the PPPC rule.
Racial and political discrimination is not the order of the day as in PPPC time. There are no phantom killings. And fatal shootings by the police are a thing of the past. No Guyanese has been charged and imprisoned for treason. Citizens’ rights to peaceful protest are respected and no group of citizens has been tear-gassed or shot with rubber or lethal bullets.
Was this the existing situation under the PPPC regime? For the WPA these matters are critical in assessing the objective political situation prior and post 2015.
While some of Kissoon observations on the performance of the APNU/AFC Coalition hold validity in varying degrees, they are not sufficient to represent a profound deterioration comparable with the PPPC governance. It is interesting to see if Kissoon will have difficulties adjusting his position given my observations.
The WPA politics in APNU and the APNU/AFC Coalition has been central in Guyanese political discussions, both formally and informally, and for good reasons. Kissoon, like our other detractors, seeks to reduce APNU and the coalition to the PNCR.
This approach runs contrary to objective logic. I have addressed this matter in previous letters citing the no-confidence motion and its consequences. The WPA in 2015, and at present, holds the view that the coalition government and its governance is a superior option to that of 23 years of the PPPC domination, given the country’s political reality of race and political polarization.
We believe that coming oil and gas wealth with its potential requires more than ever that we have a government of many parties instead of a one-party government.
As it relates to WPA/PNCR relations (the Walter Rodney assassination and its aftermath) and the challenges therein, our view is that it does not negate the correctness of our position/judgment that the national interest is more important than partisan interests.
In previous polemics, I also explained that the party preferred to err on the side of caution rather than to take political actions that our constituents’ political consciousness might not allow them to support.
While we accept that political leadership is expected to lead, it is our conviction that this has to be done together with the people. Kissoon and our detractors want the WPA to do what is not in the best interest of the nation or the party.
In closing, I draw readers’ attention to Frederick Kissoon’s column in KN, November 29, 2019 captioned, “The part about Charran that Ramjattan left out.”
Kissoon defends MP Charrandass Persaud jumping ship and supporting the PPPC’s no-confidence motion to bring down the government. He argued that the AFC’s leadership failed to inform Charrandass on the party’s decision to close some Berbice sugar estates and this failure justified Charrandass’s actions, since he was the party’s Berbice representative.
Following Kissoon’s logic, I am posing this question to him: and in all seriousness, I am expecting Kissoon to the answer this question. It is your contention that democracy required that the AFC leadership had an obligation to consult MP Charrandass on their decision on the sugar industry. I agree that they should have done so. Is it not also important that on a major decision as WPA leaving the coalition, the party has a democratic duty to consult its supporters and coalition voters?
Tacuma Ogunseye

---

---