Dear Editor,

We note that Prem Misir with characteristic gusto has put forward the argument that we do not live in dictatorship. Most of his arguments are spurious and superficial. He talks glibly of local government reform, among many matters which he alleges are indicators of an “inclusive government.”

Local government reform has become a sham and a shibboleth. It is clear that the Local Government Task Force was deliberately aborted by the PPP because they had no real belief in the concept of inclusive governance, or shared anything, Rather, they seem well set on the road to hegemony. They now say they are referring all residual matters to Parliament, but that is where they have a secure majority. That simply means it is not what the opposition or even what the citizens think or need, but what the PPP majority wants. It is clear what the government wants is similar to what the old imperial overlords did – dictate and decide what must happen.

In the case of Georgetown, they starve you of funds and when things become overbearing, with the appropriate publicity and propaganda machine in place, they come to the rescue. I earlier painted this picture: “Tie a man’s hand, then throw him into the deep waters, when he comes up for a second gulp of air, with cameras at the ready, lifeboats and cheering sycophants, you rescue him. Headline – ‘Government again rescues, etc,’ then wait for the next command performance.”

Mr Misir had the temerity to talk about information, yet after all these years of a ‘return to democracy,’ we still only have a single radio station, government controlled. Also, a well-staffed NCN and Chronicle which never publishes any article that is even halfway critical of the government.

Imagine he talks about allocation of state lands. Could Dr Misir be kind enough to give us a breakdown of state lands which have been allocated from 1992? To whom and how many acres, not forgetting Roger Khan’s concession?

To answer Dr Misir’s absurd glibness will take volumes; instead I hereby publicly challenge him separately, or with a team to a public debate on this question of inclusive government. A condition of such a debate must be for the government-controlled media (NCN, Chronicle and radio) to broadcast/publish the entire proceedings unedited, and if in the interest of time or space, any editing must be subject to a signed agreement by the contracting parties.

Let us have a team of four or five on each side, or a one-on-one with adequate notice given to all concerned, and let us in true democratic fashion allocate equal time to the opponents and have this open public debate on shared governance. Lest we forget Dr Misir, why in spite of promises, is there no freedom of information legislation?

Yours faithfully,
Hamilton Green, JP