Charran and the reason for the NCV on this date in 2018

Dec 21, 2021 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

Kaieteur News – I have no interest in being part of political parties or political office. I simply don’t have the temperament for that aspect of life. How do governmental leaders control their rage and impatience at the absolute nonsense their detractors write?
A woman goes in front of a respected international body and urges them to stop the authorities from drilling for oil in Guyana. A frequent letter writer, who is committed to advising the government to always practice good governance, published a letter requesting that the government reappoint Dr. Vincent Adams as head of the EPA without any thought to the man being in the leadership of a parliamentary opposition party.
I use these two examples against the background of the 3rd anniversary of the no-confidence vote which falls on this day. It is not the appalling, irrational interpretations put on the action of Charrandas Persaud in some quarters that drive pessimism in me. It is the lack of response by others who should at least attempt to save whatever little intellectual legacy is left in this country.
To this day, Charran is being vilified by those quarters mentioned above and there are always three reasons cited. I saw a television programme recently, in which AFC leader, Khemraj Ramjattan continues to accuse Charran of treachery. He said up to the last minute, Charran insisted that he would vote against the motion.
The other two reasons are betrayal – you don’t vote against your own government. And thirdly, that he took a bribe. We continue to see a lack of intellectual reasoning in this country that is needed to confront these evil propagandistic outputs. The bribe thing can easily be dismissed. Let’s debunk it.
If the PPP made a deal with Charran in which he votes for the motion and is paid for it, then that deal was settled with the vote. Why then would they make him ambassador to one of the strategic countries Guyana relate to? He voted, they paid him, they each go their separate ways. Why give him a huge diplomatic post?
What about the treachery accusation? Read and listen to the description of the act of treachery. The line is repetitive – he gave us the assurance then he backstabbed us. What is so banal about this explanation? Backstabbing was part of the APNU+AFC’s deportment in government. Why is Charran the only defaulter?
The APNU+AFC promised changes to the Narcotics Act. It backstabbed African youths by withholding the changes without an explanation. David Granger broke the constitutional requirement for the appointment of a GECOM chairman until the court forced him to recognise the constitution. Why is Charran the only villain?
Moses Nagamootoo and Khemraj Ramjattan walked into power through the votes of Berbicians. They never told sugar workers they will close the industry. Once in power, they did that. Most egregiously, they never consulted with the AFC’s parliamentary representative for Berbice – Charran himself. He told Guyanese that he only knew of the decision through the press. If you deconstruct the word treachery, then it applies to all those examples cited above.
The question why he lied then voted for the motion is easily explainable. He wanted a group of power-drunkards, who betrayed him and his country, to fall. He had every reason to hide his intention from them. He was dealing with unprincipled humans whom he had lost respect for. Put yourself in his place. Why should he have telegraphed his thoughts to such rulers?
Finally – the accusation that one should not vote against one’s party in parliament. My disappointment with this country is the naked hypocrites, which it has and they are multiplying astronomically. People write in the newspapers and on their Meta pages and speak on television all the time about Guyana’s need to have moral governance, transparency and accountability in its existence. But that is all they complain about.
They didn’t have the decency and moral courage to discuss the role of conscience in what Charran did. And what he did was to put conscience before politics. Long after Charran voted against his own government, British Prime Minister, Theresa May lost power because her own parliamentarians voted against her.
Today is the 3rd anniversary of what Charran did. The absence of intellectual defence of him from the older folks in this country is vivid testimony that we have lost the world of the 40s, 50s and 60s that once made Guyana a shining horizon in the Caribbean. Basic cowardice and horrifying double standards have replaced philosophical guidance. I end for the umpteen time with my favourite French saying: “God is dead. Marx is dead. And I’m not feeling too well myself.”
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---