Rupert Roopnaraine: The sky’s wild disappearance

Oct 25, 2021 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

Kaieteur News – On Thursday evening, I opened my email inbox to find someone had sent me a tape of an interview Journalist, Neil Marks of Newsroom did with Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine in June 2020 when his party, the APNU, had refused to concede defeat in the March elections.
The sender wrote, “Freddie did you ever see this? We were having a discussion here in New York and this interview was mentioned that I didn’t see. I got a copy the next day and after seeing it I thought you must see it and do a column on it.” This Marks/Roopnaraine discussion I had not seen it either. I was glad that it was sent.
There aren’t words to describe Roopnaraine’s fall from grace. I have served in the area of liberation of Guyana for over 50 years, far longer than Roopnaraine and when I tell you I was deeply enraged by the outpouring of Roopnaraine, please believe me. I have been long uncomfortable with Roopnaraine. After seeing that interview, I knew I was right about him.
Research Roopnaraine’s praxis with Walter Rodney and Roopnaraine’s speeches and activism from the seventies onwards then listen to the things Roopnaraine said on that programme. You will never appreciate Roopnaraine again.
First, a word about Neil Marks. I have a very cordial and good relation with Neil but I believe he did not do his research before the interview and he eschewed the most vital requirements of an interview when you are dealing with a guest who has been in politics for a long time and also had state power.
What follows are the mistakes of Marks and Roopnaraine’s fall from the sky. This close ally of Walter Rodney said that there were thousands of anomalies discovered during the election. That was not true. Marks knew that was untrue because he reported on the recount every day. Marks knew who made those accusations of anomalies and it came from one source only – Roopnaraine’s friends in the APNU.
Immediately, Marks, if he knew what was required of an interviewer, had to rejoin and inform Roopnaraine that the world did not accept that thrust of the APNU. If Marks had done a follow-up question, we would have seen more images of Roopnaraine’s falling from the sky.
Marks asked Roopnaraine how he could join the party that killed Rodney. His answer was that the PNC of today is not the PNC of yesterday. Again, we saw Marks failing to rejoin. It is the same PNC that rigged election several times in the past, ignored the Carter/Price article in the Constitution, and practiced racial discrimination against Indians.
Marks kept stumbling and one hopes he has learned his lesson. He kept asking Roopnaraine, how Rodney would feel about the state of Guyana. Roopnaraine kept describing Rodney’s love for the villagers and the empowerment of the poorer classes. But those things did not happen when Rodney’s party and Roopnaraine were in power for five years.
Marks then needed to follow up and point out to Roopnaraine that Roopnaraine was in government when the private economy of some 42,000 people connected to the sugar industry were disemboweled and his WPA co-leader, Dr. Clive Thomas, was in charge of the very industry. Then, out of the blue Marks finally got it right then got it badly wrong.
He pursued Roopnaraine and told him that the WPA was in government for five years. Here now is the pathetic reply of Roopnaraine. He told Marks that the WPA did serve. You don’t serve in the government of Guyana. You try to transform Guyana. Guyana has a terribly mashed up sociology, economy and cultural foundation. So, you seek state power through elections to change the nation, and empower people.
When you acquire state power in Guyana, you must innovate and create so that hope and optimism can reign supreme. Roopnaraine and the WPA did not do this. The PNC that Roopnaraine said was a born-again thing did not do this. Finally, a particular lapse of Marks that should compel him to try to save his credibility is requesting another interview. Marks enquired of Roopnaraine of his feeling about the report of the commission of inquiry into Walter’s assassination. The WPA co-leader responded that he was very disappointed with how the report was treated. But Roopnaraine voted in Parliament against the release. Marks should have pounced on that.
The interview ended with Roopnaraine telling his host that he, Roopnaraine, cannot see himself being inactive. The obvious question is, if Roopnaraine is to remain active what type of political activity is he going to pursue? WPA is dead. AFC is dead. APNU is dead and the PNC is not in good health.

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

---

---