Dear Editor,
Reference is made to Mike Persaud’s letter, ‘There is absolutely no chance of defeating the PPP unless there is a people’s partnership,’ SN, September 6. Mr Persaud thinks the PPP and PNC can be “genuine multi-racial parties by having a leader from outside their traditional ethnic-support base.” What Mr Persaud does not say and needs to further explain, is how his thoughts translate to meaningful change. The PPP has leaders in their midst from other racial groups, but the minorities continue to cry out and show cases of discrimination in development for the hinterland communities, African economic security, and so forth. Indians are also excluded from the PPP handouts, with many peeved and embarrassed over things the party does. How can these inequities be corrected with a leader being “outside the ethnic-support base” begs explanation.
The WPA, PNC, ACDA and some sections of civil society have been calling for shared governance and good governance. Messrs Tacuma Ogunseye and Eric Phillips have incessantly called for an end to the Westminster system. Mr Lincoln Lewis said it is unconstitutional to make race a selection criterion for the presidential candidate and said that government has a constitutional responsibility to serve all whether or not they vote for the party in power. All have provided solid arguments supported by the country’s constitution, the handicaps of the Westminster system in our society and working models of shared governance elsewhere. Mr Persaud has to make a similar case.
Mr Persaud said he went to Congress Place and asked for the leader of the PNC to step down. Who is Mr Persaud to ask the leader of the PNC to step down? Is he or his desire superior to the PNC members who elected their leader and is he now telling them that he has no respect for them and that his views are superior to theirs and their votes don’t count? Mr Persaud did not say if he is a member of the PNC, and if he is, whether he voted for the current leader and is now withdrawing his support in the interest of the nation. Apart from the need to explain, if Mr. Persaud is truly serious about the leader stepping down in the interest of the country, he should have made that visit to President Jagdeo at Office of the President. Mr Jagdeo is President of Guyana and it is his government that receives and manages the tax dollars of the citizens and continues to do an abysmal job. It is Mr Jagdeo whom Mr Persaud should call on to step down and it seems that he was misdirected or his aim is to create a negative image for the leader of the PNC.
Another claim is made that the AFC would not form an alliance with the PNC once Mr Corbin is leader. In 2006 when Mr Raphael Trotman was the AFC presidential candidate some section of this society said they will not vote for the AFC with him as the presidential candidate, but no call was made for him to step down. Looking at the AFC support base one wonders if not calling for him to step down fits into a grand design. I do not think Mr Persaud will tell Mr Khemraj Ramjattan to step down as leader of the AFC or not be its presidential candidate in spite of the grumblings from some.
Mr Persaud thinks the PNC presidential candidate must also be the party leader and a special Congress must take place to make this happen. Even as Mr Persaud says this must happen in the PNC, he is not asking for the same in the PPP or AFC. Donald Ramotar was the leader of the PPP in 2006 and was not its presidential candidate, and he is still leader. Probably Mr Persaud can show his genuineness by explaining why he didn’t demand of the PPP that Mr Ramotar be their 2006 presidential candidate or ask Mr Ramotar to give up the leadership of the PPP to Mr Jagdeo, or Mr Jagdeo to give the presidency to Mr Ramotar, who still remains the party leader.
Mr Persaud said that he was in the company of Makeswar ‘Fip’ Motilall (see SN, August 31) but never informed readers if he had chastised Mr Motilall over the hydro-electric project. Has he chastised the Government of Guyana for their decisions in the Amaila Falls matter?
Mr Persaud derogatorily called letter writers “cronies” for asking that the “rule of law” in the PNC be honoured and accused the leader of the PNC of beginning a “whole train of shenanigans.” In seems as though for Mr Persaud the rule of law is only good when it benefits him and bad when it does not.
Dr Van West-Charles has claimed there were electoral irregularities in the PNC leadership vote, but it was not he who contested the election despite the fact that he received more nominations than Mr Winston Murray behind whom he threw his support – a support whose genuineness is still being questioned. Mr Murray said in spite of any irregularities Mr Corbin would have won the election given the wide margin. But it is Dr Van West-Charles who now behaves as though he had contested and is the aggrieved contender. Mr Persaud sees him as having brought back “new ideas and values of democracy… [he is] the quintessential, indefatigable fighter for important nationalist causes.” Dr Van West-Charles is given the limelight and kudos for his disorderly antics by those who previously condemned him, still privately do, and will again publicly do so after he no longer serves their purpose.
Yours faithfully,
A Archer
New York
