Correct yourself Charrandass!

Feb 03, 2021 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Kaieteur News – The decision to appoint Charrandass Persaud as the country’s High Commissioner to India is vulgar. This is one of the dumbest decisions of the incumbent regime.
When Persaud supported the successful PPP/C no-confidence motion in December 2019, he wrote his name in the history books. His decisive vote allowed for the first successful no-confidence motion to be passed against a government in the National Assembly.
A previous no-confidence vote tabled by Moses Nagamootoo in 2014 was neutralized, after then President Donald Ramotar prorogued the National Assembly in anticipation of the successful passage of that motion. At the time, the combined Opposition had a one-seat majority in the National Assembly.
It took another four years for another no-confidence vote to reach the Assembly’s floor. Then the government held a one-seat majority and the Opposition PPP/C needed someone from the APNU+AFC to vote in favour of the motion. They secured that vote from Persaud.
Persaud’s vote was the key to the success of the PPP/C motion. He warmed the hearts of persons in the government’s camp.
The PPP/C had to have known that he would have supported the vote. It is unlikely that Jagdeo would have moved such a motion unless he had been assured of its success, but Persaud denied that he had made any deal with the PPP/C.
The APNU+AFC, with which he has been associated, tried to suggest – without a shred of evidence – that he had been bribed by the PPP/C. A police investigation was even launched but nothing came of that, Persaud insisted that his vote was a conscience vote and that he had not been in contact with the Leader of the Opposition.
He insisted that he was displeased with the way the APNU+AFC was conducting its affairs. And he said he was peeved at the manner in which the sugar workers in Berbice, his constituency, were treated. The vote was the only chance he had to effecting change.
He had complained bitterly about how the APNU+AFC had treated the sugar workers. In a Facebook rant he had said, “When they closed the Wales Sugar Estate …there was no consultation and you expect that given they closed the Rose Hall and Skeldon [sugar estates] in Region Six, they might have talked to people, some of us, [get] an input …see how it will impact them (people).”
He returned to Canada following the vote. He holds dual citizenship. It was not expected that he would return to Guyana, given the hostility which the now Opposition held for him. But this columnist has always felt that persons within the AFC knew how he was going to vote on the no-confidence motion. Some of the AFC’s members hardly showed surprise at the time he voted.
His soon-to-be announced appointment as Guyana’s High Commissioner of India is bad optics. It creates the impression that Persaud is being rewarded for his vote. The PPP/C should never have offered him anything since this tend to support the belief that he had a deal with them and is now being repaid for his vote.
Persaud is no supporter of the PPP/C. He has been highly critical of the PPP/C when he was in the National Assembly. He had also said that he was required to be a ‘yes’ man under the APNU+AFC and he was not comfortable with this.
As the High Commissioner of Guyana to India, he will now have to be a “yes” man for the PPP/C government. One wonders whether he is comfortable with this.
He is also been given too important a posting. India is a strategic ally. It is expected within the next two decades to emerge as a global power. It is also a major donor to Guyana, assisting in a range of areas including infrastructure and the reform of the sugar industry. India has also said that it is prepared to purchase all of Guyana’s oil lifts at market prices.
Given the strategic importance of India, a less controversial High Commissioner to India would have been advisable. But true to form, the same PPP/C, which had exiled Ronald Gajraj to India, is now foisting the highly controversial Persaud as Guyana’s representative to the sub-continent.
He should refuse. As one of his former colleagues had intoned of him during the no-confidence vote, he should correct himself. He will destroy his heroic standing if he is seen as accepting a posting, which the public is bound to perceive as a form of political payback.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)