David Granger on the electoral value of Charrandass Persaud

Mar 25, 2021 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

Kaieteur News – One is always amused and oxymoronically revolted at the sheer absurdities that pro-PNC people mouth off all the time. If they step back for a moment, and reflect on these insane ramblings, they will see they do irreparable damage to the PNC.
In four years’ time, there will be a general election. One has to be living on another planet to think the traumas that hurt a majority of Guyanese in the five-month election drama will not be fresh in the consciousness of voters. Lincoln Lewis addressing a May Day rally told his audience that it should take dozens of votes in a no-confidence motion (NCM) to remove a government.
David Granger said during the last rally of the APNU+AFC in the 2015 campaign that if returned to power, he would remove the no-confidence clause (he could not because it is a constitutional article). Vincent Alexander as recent as March 4 in response to one of my columns, wrote the following, “Charrandass’ vote, on the No Confidence Motion, was one of the most reprehensible and immoral acts in the history of Guyana’s politics. Charrandass was not directly elected and had no individual mandate.”
Let’s deal with Alexander first. No one from another planet reading Alexander would believe that he heads an institute named, The Forbes Burnham Foundation, whose main purpose is to perpetuate the legacy of Burnham. This very Burnham was never directly elected to be the president of Guyana. If Charrandass’ vote “was one of the most reprehensible and immoral acts in the history of Guyana’s politics,” then can Alexander say which emanations from his hero, Forbes Burnham would match, in his eyes, Charran’s depravity?
When Guyanese read what Lewis, Granger and Alexander said then their only conclusion can be disgust. Granger, as Leader of the Opposition, mounted a weekly picket (joined by yours truly) in 2011 for President Ramotar to convene parliament so that the PNC and AFC with a one-seat majority can debate an NCM, which was already on the Order Paper. Granger wanted to remove the PPP Government through an NCM in which the vote would have been 33 for the PNC and AFC, and 32 for the PPP.
When Granger got into power, the NCM had no more value for him. When these PNC people behave like this, can you trust them with power? This is what caused the Charrandass vote. It was no act of treachery by Charran, but an act of deep conscience at work.
Throughout history, people have acted like Charran and they will continue to do so. People will always react against the abuse of power. In the evolution of his politics and his closeness to Forbes Burnham, Alexander would not understand what is meant by the moral rejection of the abuse of power.
So why did Charran do it? We can go back to the words of Opposition Leader, David Granger. In 2011, after the PNC and AFC won a joint majority in the national election, the AFC proposed Moses Nagamootoo for the Speaker of the House. The PNC rejected his name.
Arguments began to flow from the AFC that if it weren’t for Nagamootoo’s votes in Berbice, the PPP would not have lost. Granger gave a cynical but plausible response. He said it wasn’t Nagamootoo alone that took Berbice with him, but others like Charrandass brought in votes. He was right.
Charrandass has always been a popular figure in Berbice. In 2015, both he and Dr. Ramaya were given enormous reception during the election campaign. I know this because I campaigned with them and we spoke at several meetings. Granger, his PNC party, the AFC, and people like Alexander, have no capacity to understand the depth of betrayal that Charran felt.
My take is that by 2017, Charran felt that the APNU+AFC was far worse than the PPP, had betrayed Guyanese who voted for them, and he wanted them out. By 2018, Charran had grown to hate the APNU+AFC. Those who study power would understand how hate could develop in politics.
For mundane minds that the PNC and AFC helped to twist, Charran was a political traitor who took money to vote against the APNU+AFC. To mask the hatred Guyanese people harboured for them over a three-year period made Charran the villain of the play.
He was their excuse. He became a curse who opportunistically teamed up with the PPP. History records it differently. He was the man with a conscience who said deadly politicians have poisoned Guyana’s future and I will intervene. He did and the rest is history. If Charran is a demon, so is Forbes Burnham.

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

---

---