Dear Editor,

After reading Peeping Tom’s column in Kaieteur News  on Saturday, June27, 2009, captioned  ‘The PPP is in a tangle,’ it occurred to me that this particular Peeping Tom is a PPP/C activist who is using his column to wage an internal party struggle, publicly.

The Peeper devoted his entire column to address what he sees as a potential threat to the PPP, arising in part out of recent publications which were critical of the PPP leadership.

It was very obvious that uppermost in the mind of the Peeper was the debate between Ralph Ramkarran, David Hinds, Eusi Kwayana and other letter writers, on the role of the PPP in the racial divisions in the country.

In his column the Peeper called on the party to develop an effective mechanism to defend itself from criticism, and not to allow members, even those who may have been part of a process of engagement, to appoint themselves to be spokespersons on party history (it is very clear that he was referring here to Ralph Ramkarran). The call has a touch of PPP orthodoxy and the old political culture. But more important it is a condemnation of the present party leadership, which in the eyes of the Peeper is proving to be inadequate to the task of preserving the party’s history as seen through the eyes of the Jagans and their close collaborators.

It is public knowledge that since the passing of Mrs Jagan, who for many years and at the time of her death, was responsible for the party’s newspaper the Mirror, this responsibility is now in the hands of Ralph Ramkarran. To all appearances, Peeper the PPP activist was enraged because Mr Ramkarran was forced to admit to his shortcomings in the recent public debate. He sees this as a weakness on the part of Ramkarran, when compared with comrade Janet, who, it is well known, that in spite of how conclusive the evidence was against the PPP, would not have conceded an inch.

It is normal in polemics to win some points and to lose some points, and the Peeper is aware of this; however, his tactic is to use Ramkarran’s limitations in the debate to put in the public domain the present struggle in the party as it relates to which faction and leader can be the custodian of the Jagans’ legacy. Peeper, the PPP activist, is using this issue to exploit known contradictions among party leaders and factions.

The Peeper wrote, “There is a great deal of mischief of misrepresentation which is taking place and the party must develop the capacity to deal with those criticisms since some of those criticisms are taking a nasty angle.”

He went on to cite Eusi Kwayana’s reminder to the nation that  Dr Jagan had made cheap propaganda of Walter Rodney’s assassination, an observation which Kwayana had made in his response to Ramkarran.

The Peeper continued, “For example, it is now being alleged that something that Cheddi said was a mockery of Rodney.

“This is far from the truth…”  It is worth noting that the Peeper was careful not to repeat what Kwayana stated that Dr Jagan had said about Rodney’s death. Readers who did not read Kawayana’s letter are left to wonder what the big lie is. More so the Peeper is categorical that Kwayana in his reference to Cheddi Jagan’s  remark was not speaking the truth.

I am certain that the historical Peeping Tom would have no difficulty with the accuracy of Kwayana’s statement, given his keen reading of the media reports over the years, and his known attendance at political meetings at election times.

He cannot pretend not to have known that this accusation against Dr Jagan was made by the WPA while both Jagans were still alive. He would also have known that I have addressed this matter on a number of occasions at WPA public meetings, in a letter to the press, and also in a paper I did on Rodney and the WPA delivered in 1998 at a conference at the State University of New York at Binghamton to honour the 18th anniversary of Walter‘s assassination.
I therefore submit here that this Peeper, who I am insisting is a PPP activist, was at all times aware of Dr Jagan’s utterance that Rodney had promised the Guyanese people a Christmas present (meaning Rodney implied that the defeat of the dictatorship was imminent before Christmas) but instead gave them his head on a platter. Peeper, the PPP activist, understands that there is an urgent need for the party to do some serious damage control or risk the political fall-out if they don’t. In his attempt to move them in the direction of damage control he has attempted to ridicule Kwayana’s statement, thereby hoping to increase his (Peeper’s) image in the party.

What the Peeper has cleverly done is to publicly put the party’s leadership in a political “tangle” of having to come out and defend the indefensible, since the statement was made by Jagan. Public record will show that neither of the Jagans has ever denied making this attack on Rodney and the WPA.

As the situation stands if the PPP party leadership now comes out and denies Jagan’s statement, they will have to explain the Jagans’ long ‘silence’ on this matter.  If they fail to defend Dr Jagan against the “so-called allegation” it will be used in the internal party struggle as evidence of the betrayal of the party’s great leader.

And if they choose to be silent it will amount to acceptance that Jagan did made the remark and Eusi Kwayana is correct. They are damned if they speak and damned if they don’t. Very clever indeed, Peeping Tom.

Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye