Dear Editor,
A storm in a teacup is being raised by some PPP supporters over the announcement that Brigadier Granger is interested in being the PNC’s presidential candidate in the 2011 general elections. The tempest is the elections of 1973 and the role the GDF played.
Some even go so far as to hold Brig Granger responsible although he was just a Major then and not in command of the GDF. In any case it was not the GDF that rigged the elections. It was the PNC, and the PPP was eager to hop into bed with the PNC after the elections. Whilst it is true that the 1973 elections were massively rigged with the GDF being a principal actor, that event occurred 37 years ago and it should now be juxtaposed with the elections held under the PPP regime in 1997, 2001, and 2006 and examined.
The PNC rigged elections because its African support base was insufficient to win a free and fair election. The PPP’s Indian base was large enough to guarantee the PPP victory in elections so there was no need to rig as the PNC did. However the PPP had to ensure that Indians voted en bloc for it and to do so the party has consistently resorted to capitalizing on Indian fears.
It has done so by whipping up hysteria in the bottom houses. In addition crime waves which appeared to target Indians caused them to huddle around the PPP. In its uninterrupted 18 year reign the PPP has done nothing to allay Indian fears because it is an election tool for the PPP.
Can one honestly say, therefore, that the elections under the PPP were truly free and fair? So it is hypocritical to cry foul when the PNC rigged but the PPP uses fear to ensure electoral victory. And what of the rigging of the 1962 congress to deny Balram Singh Rai the chairmanship of the party? The PPP was the first party to engage in election rigging so it should not berate the PNC for rigging national elections. The Guyanese society has legitimacy in demanding justice for the rigged elections, but not the PPP.
Immediately after the 1973 elections the PPP boycotted parliament and called for civil disobedience. In 1974 the PNC announced it would embark on the socialist path of development. In 1975 the PPP acting on orders from the Communist Party of Cuba declared “critical support” for the PNC.
In 1977 it proposed to form a national front government with the PNC and called the 135 days sugar strike to back its proposal. After the PNC rigged the 1978 referendum the PPP continued with its campaign to merge with the PNC. Even after the assassination of Walter Rodney and the rigged election of 1980 the PPP started secret power-sharing negotiations with the PNC, even as it remained a member of the opposition grouping the PCD. This clearly shows that the PPP were not interested in elections as a tool of democracy but as a means to obtain power.
We have to look at which countries the PPP supported. It was rabidly pro-communist in its ideology and supported communist dictatorships everywhere. It supported Russian military intervention in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan to prop up communist dictatorships. The PPP was fanatically Marxist Leninist. In such countries elections are not held to elect the government. The communist party rules by unrestrained suppression of the people.
That is communism. And so I ask PPP supporters how can a devout communist party like the PPP want a socialist party like the PNC to hold free and fair elections? It shows that the PPP leadership was intellectually bankrupt. It was promulgating an ideology that did not hold elections yet on the other hand it was asking a proponent of that ideology to hold not just elections but a free and fair one at that so that it could replace that party in power! Well eventually the PNC under President Hoyte held a free and fair election in 1992 which the PPP won. But has its rule been better than the PNC’s? Has the PPP advanced democracy?
Let’s see: In the year 2010 Guyana still has only one radio station and it is state owned but controlled by the ruling PPP.
One TV station was arbitrarily closed down for 6 months. The two independent dailies have had government ads withdrawn from them. Journalists are attacked on the street. The parliament is a rubber stamp. The President still enjoys dictatorial powers granted by Burnham’s 1980 constitution. Independent labour unions are harassed. Extra-judicial killings are the order of the day. Multiple criminal gangs have now replaced those of the PNC era.
The government can dole out billions of dollars without parliamentary approval. There is no ombudsman. Few inquests and inquiries into killings are held. Those organisations the regime cannot control it destroys.
This reads just like the pre-Hoyte era of the PNC. Oh sorry, I don’t mean to insult the PPP regime. I almost forgot to mention the proliferation of the narco-trade. Well I guess that puts the PPP ahead of the PNC on poor performance. So the PPP apologists can stop harping on the ills of the PNC and its rigged elections.
First they should put their own house in order. The PPP has proven itself to be worse than the PNC. The longer the PPP rules the less bad the PNC looks. At least the PNC has taken the first step in transforming itself by at least considering Brig Granger as its presidential candidate. When will the PPP start democratizing itself?
Yours faithfully,
Malcolm Harripaul
